Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HIGHLAND REGION (KINLOCHBERVIE) ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Younger presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Highland Region (Kinlochbervie); And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Tourism (Grant-aid)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the operation of section 4 grant-aid under the Development of Tourism Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): The operation of the section 4 scheme is primarily a matter for the national tourist boards for England, Scotland and Wales, which have authority to approve individual offers of assistance up to £200,000. I believe that the scheme helps to stimulate investment in tourism projects which would not otherwise take place.

Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for making additional funds available for this purpose; funds which not only widen and improve the quality of tourist projects in this country but help to create employment? Is he aware that whereas the average cost of creating a new job in the tourist industry is £4,500, each unemployed person costs the nation £6,000 a year?

Mr. Butcher: There is no doubt that the tourism industry has made a magnificant contribution to job creation in the United Kingdom. In the hotel trade alone there was an increase of 14,000 jobs in the 12 months to September 1984. In that context, section 4 assistance has been cost effective. I cannot give my hon. Friend any reassurance on future spending under section 4, but he will be aware that our hon. Friend the Minister of State has said that he wants expenditure to continue over the next three years at approximately the 1983 rate.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister accept that, given the parity of the pound against the dollar, this is a particularly good time to try to attract tourists to Britain, in particular from the United States? Will he ensure that adequate

finance is available — even more finance than the expenditure limits at present allow for the Development of Tourism Act 1969—to maximise that potential?

Mr. Butcher: There is no doubt that the current movements in exchange rates could provide a massive boost for the balance of payments through tourism. While the British Tourist Authority is doing its job very well indeed, we hope that it will take advantage, within its current funding levels, of the bonus that is being presented to it.

Mr. John Townend: Will my hon. Friend see whether changes need to be made so that seaside towns which are outside assisted areas and are not in receipt of tourist grants are able to make application for EEC grants?

Mr. Butcher: Section 4 is available, at the request of the tourist industry, on a national and sectoral basis, but it envisaged that the assisted area policy might result in some discrepancies which would not be wholly welcome to the industry. However, I note my hon. Friend's point on the European dimension and will convey it to my appropriate colleagues.

Local Enterprise Agencies

Mr. Bellingham: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many local enterprise agencies are in existence; and how many are in the process of being set up.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): There are 238 local enterprise agencies and a further 38 are in the process of being set up.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that a local enterprise agency is in the process of being set up in King's Lynn, where, regrettably, the unemployment level is above the regional average? Is he further aware that, when established, it will play a crucial role in helping small buinesses, and thus will help to reduce unemployment? What Government help is available to such local enterprise agencies?

Mr. Trippier: I am aware that an enterprise agency is in the process of being set up in west Norfolk. Having visited my hon. Friend's constituency on two occasions, I take this opportunity to pay him a warm tribute for the initiative that he has displayed in bringing forward this enterprise agency.
The main assistance that is available for the establishment of local enterprise agencies is from the private sector. The principal assistance available from the Government is the tax relief on the contributions made by the private sector, provided that those enterprise agencies are established. In addition, pump priming funds are available at regional offices of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in enterprise zones the development—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a different question. The question is about enterprise agencies.

Mr. Loyden: I am referring to these zones in the context of small businesses. Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that the retail outlets that have been developed in enterprise zones are destroying the small businesses that lie outside those areas? Is it not a fact—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is still referring to a different subject.

Shoes

Mr. Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in persuading foreign countries to reduce their import tariffs on United Kingdom-manufactured shoes to levels the United Kingdom imposes through the common external tariff.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Paul Channon): Footwear, like other British exports, has benefited from reductions in duty granted by trading partners in successive GATT negotiations. But many tariffs remain far too high—and not only on shoes.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. As he knows, footwear manufacturing is important in my constituency of Kettering. We face high and often unfair tariffs. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to urge the European Commission, on the accession of Spain, to increase the common external tariff, as we are allowed to do under GATT, to the weighted average between the European Community as presently constituted and Spain, and to use that bargaining weapon with those other countries which so far have refused to reduce their tariffs?

Mr. Channon: I note what my hon. Friend says. I have been much impressed by the representations that he has made to me on a number of occasions on behalf of the footwear industry. The answer to my hon. Friend's specific point is that this would depend upon negotiations between the Community and the other contracting parties to GATT. I cannot say that any great increase in tariffs is in prospect.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the Minister is concerned about the prospects for the shoe manufacturing industry, will he, in the coming weeks, spend less time considering the important question of tariff quotas and spend more time making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is considering imposing VAT on children's shoes?

Mr. Channon: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend, and not for me.

Mr. Marlow: As my right hon. Friend is well aware that the footwear industry is deeply concerned about the fact that everyone seems to be able to get into our markets, but we do not seem to be able to have the opportunity to get into other people's markets, will he tell the industry that there is nothing that he can do about the matter because he is quite powerless, and all power resides in Brussels with the European Community? The industry will then direct its complaints and attention to where something can be done about the problem.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend has slightly exaggerated the position. The British Government are perfectly capable of making representations to the Community and pressing the Community to take effective action. There are many areas where the footwear industry faces difficult exporting problems, but there are certain places — for example, South Korea — where progress is being made. We shall continue to press for progress to be made.

Mr. Williams: Is it not nonsense for the Minister to pretend that VAT is a matter for the Chancellor and not for him? After all, does not the Minister's Department represent the manufacturers? Will not the manufacturers be severely harmed if VAT is introduced? Does not the Minister's Department allegedly and purportedly represent the consumers? Will not the consumers be severely hurt if VAT is introduced?

Mr. Channon: Surely even the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget.

Small Businesses (Assistance)

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to educate professional advisers about the help available from his Department to their small business clients.

Mr. Trippier: We are curently sponsoring seminars for professional advisers on the importance of business planning. I am confident that these will prove as popular and successful as our earlier series on Government grants and advisory services and on small firms finance.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I thank my hon. Friend and welcome his reply. Can he reassure the House that during the endeavour there will not be too great a shift of finite resources away from direct help to small businesses?

Mr. Trippier: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am anxious to educate, as far as we are able, the professional advisers who act as intermediaries and advise the important people—the small business men.

Mr. MacKenzie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the best help that he can give to small firms is to ensure that they obtain orders? If our large companies, whether they are in the public or the private sector, are going bust—and many of them are—then, by definition, the number of orders placed with small firms will be reduced. The best assistance that the hon. Gentleman can give these small firms is to ensure that there is an upsurge of demand by the large companies for the products of small companies.

Mr. Trippier: That certainly has an obvious effect. However, the right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the Government's record on helping small firms is of the highest order. I published some figures not so long ago which showed that there had been a net increase in the number of small firms of some 47,000 in a year — slightly more than double the figure for the year before. That shows clearly that we are on the right track.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the work of the small firms centres, and in particular the Nottingham one, which covers the Leicestershire area and the city of Leicester? Will he ensure that those advising and helping — to a large extent from Leicester — are properly updated about all the assistance available for small firms, which represent the future of our country and which will provide real jobs?

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful for the compliments that my hon. Friend has paid to the small firms centres, especially the one in Nottingham. I am certain that the service provided by the inquiry officer and the small firms counsellors in that region is very much appreciated in my hon. Friend's area and in his constituency.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister keen for his Department to assist producer co-operatives? Do his


officials work closely with local authorities, many of which have done good work in encouraging co-operatives in their areas?

Mr Trippier: We have shown that we are anxious to encourage the growth of co-operatives. The Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act was passed by Parliament in 1984, and we are keen that the co-operative sector should expand. However, we must recognise that there are little more than 1,000 co-operatives in the country at the moment — we should like to see more — compared with an overall figure of 1·3 million small firms.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that the Government's loan guarantee scheme for small businesses is not working as well as it might? The scheme could be very valuable if everyone who could benefit from it was aware of its existence. Does the Minister know that in the area which he and I represent even some of the banks deny knowledge of the scheme?

Mr. Trippier: That situation has not been brought to my attention. If it is correct, it is extremely worrying. I do not think that the Department has any difficulty in increasing awareness of the scheme. Our difficulty, and my personal embarrassment, has been that the loss rate has been far higher than we expected. I have therefore changed the terms and conditions of the scheme, thereby improving the appraisal and monitoring procedure.

Mr. John Smith: Is not the biggest problem faced by small firms the severe decline in medium-sized and large businesses? Surely the biggest help that the Government could give the small firms would be to find a strategy for the survival and prosperity of manufacturing in this country? Is it not true that the most severe decline has taken place since the present Government took office and that a reversal of that decline is more important than all the schemes in the world?

Mr. Trippier: The right hon. Gentleman's statement reflects the views held by his party when last in government. They took no cognisance of the fact that a greater concentration on small firms — as has been effected by the present Government — would increase employment potential in the larger firms. I find it difficult to imagine that the larger firms would increase their demand on the labour market as much as smaller firms, which have not only wealth-creating potential, but employment potential. It is a matter of balance.

EC (Manufactures)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total surplus or deficit in trade in manufactures with the European Economic Community in 1984; and what was the comparable surplus or deficit in 1974.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): The deficit in trade in manufactures with other members of the Community was £7¾ billion in 1984, offset by a surplus in trade in oil of £7·4 billion. In 1974, the deficit in manufacturing was £½ billion.

Mr. Taylor: We still have a surplus in our manufacturing trade with the rest of the world. What are

The main reasons for the devastating and appalling deficit in trade with the Common Market, which must be having an appalling effect on unemployment in this country?

Mr. Tebbit: What is important in these matters is not the particular balance in relation to one country or group of countries, or one manufacturing or trading activity as opposed to another, but the overall balance. In 1984, overall, we were in surplus, whereas in 1974, overall, we were in deficit. The position has improved in the last decade.
Our customers come here to buy because we offer the best value for the things that they buy from us. In exactly the same way, our consumers go where they think they can find the best value.

Mr. Crowther: Will the Secretary of State urge on the Leader of the House the need for a debate, in Government time, on the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which has demonstrated dramatically the seriousness of the problem? Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said about the need to balance one thing against another, does he agree that manufacturing is at the heart of wealth creation in Britain? What does he suggest that we live on when the oil runs out?

Mr. Tebbit: Of course manufacturing is an important part of wealth creation, but it is not the only part. If we lived in a slightly more rational world, coal extraction would be a wealth creating activity, instead of a wealth destroying one as it is today. The hon. Gentleman's question about a debate is an appropriate one to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House during business questions.

Mr. Michael Marshall: What is the latest indication that my right hon. Friend has received from the Confederation of British Industry about membership of the EEC? Does he agree that the CBI's previous assessment showed that 90 per cent. of its members thought that withdrawal from the Community would be a disaster for their business prospects?

Mr. Tebbit: Like the great majority of the British people, the CBI favours our continued membership of the Community. The problem for some right hon. and hon. Labour Members is that they opposed membership, lost the battle and have not yet been able to reconcile themselves to our membership.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that the most striking feature of our current trade figures is that our non-oil visible trade deficit has increased from £2·5 billion in 1982 to £11·4 billion last year, while our oil surplus has steadily increased? Does he agree that that explains why the pound has been under pressure; that it is because we are overdependent on the oil part of our economy?

Mr. Tebbit: If the hon. Gentleman is right — I am not saying that I necessarily agree with him — the reasonable consequence of what he says is that we should try to stick the oil back in the ground and pretend that we never found it.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree chat EC countries still represent the largest and richest market for manufacturers in the world? How can it possibly be in our interests to cut ourselves off from that market? Does my


right hon. Friend agree that the answer lies in making our manufactures sufficiently competitive for European consumers to choose to buy them?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier this week, it would be prudent for those who are engaged in wage negotiations to consider the type of wage negotiations that are going on in Germany and to contrast them with some of the absurd demands that are being made in Britain.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Do the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given include steel manufacturing? If so, are we not in danger of becoming over-generous compared with some of our European partners?

Mr. Tebbit: I always try not to be over-generous with our European partners. My business is to try to be as generous as possible with Britain. I understand that the figures include steel, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, our steel industry was almost destroyed by the ravages of the Beswick review and other idiotic affairs of that type.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demand for overall industrial protection, which is implicit in many of the supplementary questions that have been fired at him, are utterly inconsistent with Britain's need to earn its living in a competitive world?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. It is theoretically possible for us to put up barriers and to prevent our people from buying goods in the most advantageous markets, but we cannot force the rest of the world to buy our goods against its will.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Japanese have managed to penetrate the European market, despite all the problems? Does he further agree that the lesson for British workers and management is that, if the Japanese can penetrate the market, the answer lies in their own hands?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, but I only wish that it were a little easier for all European manufactures to penetrate the Japanese market. That seems to be rather difficult, and the reason does not always lie in the quality or price of the goods.

Mr. Gould: The Prime Minister professes to be puzzled by the fall in the pound's value. Do not the calamitous figures which the Secretary of State gave at least offer part of the answer? How can the Government continue to talk convincingly about economic recovery when this deficit, which is worth 1 million jobs in British industry, is allowed to continue and to grow? Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the issue is being considered by the special working party which he set up to examine our disastrous decline in manufacturing trade? Will he assure us that, despite his public show of indifference, he, at least, is taking the matter seriously?

Mr. Tebbit: If it were a question of our balance of trade and balance of payments, sterling would, in general, have been lower under Labour Governments than it has been under Conservative Governments.

Child Buggy Pushchairs

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the organisations which he has consulted about his proposed new draft regulations concerning the safety of child buggy pushchairs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alex Fletcher): The consultation documents on the proposed new safety regulations for pushchairs are available in the Library. They include a full list of those consulted.

Mr. Chapman: Recognising the deficiencies in the existing regulations, will my hon. Friend say when he hopes to introduce the new regulations? Considering the serious, albeit few, accidents that there have been with the collapsible type child buggy pushchair, can he reiterate that that form of perambulator comes within the scope of the existing regulations?

Mr. Fletcher: On the second point, I can confirm that the existing regulations apply to buggies, and they will be covered also in the new ones. On the first point, the regulations will come into effect later this year.

Mr. Williams: Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary bear in mind that when the regulations were introduced in September 1978, after the death of children, they were described as the first step? Why are we still waiting for the second step six and a half years later? Has he read Which? magazine, which carried out a survey in 1982 and found that five of the 20 pushchairs that it checked were unsafe, that half of the owners of the buggy type of pushchair, and a quarter of the owners of the traditional type of pushchair, reported that they had had accidents, and that in one in 20 of those accidents a child had been injured?

Mr. Fletcher: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's points. We are making new regulations to BSI standards, which will be put into practice as soon as possible.

West Midlands Initiative

Mr. John M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in his Department's west midlands initiative.

Mr. Butcher: The primary object of the Department's west midlands initiative was to increase the application of new technologies and new production techniques in the industries of the region, and that was achieved. Much of the region has now been granted intermediate area status, and hence the emphasis of the Department's work there has shifted to regional assistance.

Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but will he tell the House what hard results he has to show for his efforts for innovation, new products and new processes in companies in the west midlands?

Mr. Butcher: I am delighted to report to my hon. Friend some of the excellent results achieved during that period. More than 1,200 companies received grants to introduce new techniques and machinery into their existing manufacturing processes, support under section 8 and under support for innovation totalled £70 million, and levered a total spend of £200 million in a cost-effective market-driven manner.

Mr. Park: How does the Minister reconcile his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) with the fact that money available for technology has been reduced, as he knows? The two do not add up.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. If he is referring to the support for innovation programme, he will know that it was significantly increased for the current financial year. The moratorium, to which I think he is referring, was invoked because awareness of the programme arrived like an express train and the application rate consequently increased. During the first few months of this year we therefore spent what had hitherto been a total year's allocation.

Sir Dudley Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that his original reply is most encouraging? Will he make further efforts and do everything that he can to encourage and help the car components industry, which in its way is even more important than the car industry?

Mr. Butcher: The car components industry was one of the major recipients of expenditure under section 8 and, indeed, under support for innovation. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in commending the excellent work that is going on, for example, at Warwick university with BL Systems and two other key companies, which are trying to spread best practice in innovative manufacture of components throughout the British motor industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is the Minister aware that for most industries in the west midlands his so-called initiative was either stillborn or died of paralysis? Is he also aware that since the Government came to power we have lost one third of industrial manufacturing capacity in the west midlands and one third of jobs in manufacturing totalling 225,000? Is he further aware that in the west midlands the phasing out of capital allowances, the massive hike in interest rates and the moratorium on regional aid amounts to nothing more than a further prolonged period of disaster for that region?

Mr. Butcher: The Labour research department has fouled up again. The hon. Gentleman should know that section 7 assistance, the type of assistance that applies in the west midlands, is still being used in that region. There is no moratorium on that.
The hon. Gentleman should also know from discussions on the subject that the prejudice of Government against the west midlands emanated directly from Labour Government activity, not least on industrial development certificates. They encouraged industry to leave that region wholesale. We have ended that and have produced much more equality of treatment for each of the assisted areas.

Small Firms (Cash Flow)

Mrs. Peacock: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to provide assistance to smaller firms to help them to cope with the problems caused by late payments of bills by large firms.

Mr. Trippier: I share the concern about the serious difficulties which that practice can cause for small firms. I have recently invited organisations representing industry to join me in examining possible initiatives.

Mrs. Peacock: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he consider withholding DTI grants from those firms which do not settle their accounts, or delay settling their accounts, with smaller firms?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend advocates a course of action that has been suggested to me on a number of occasions. My immediate reaction to the suggestion is that that approach would be a recipe for bureaucratic complexity.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the Minister recognise that, as well as large firms, among those most guilty of this practice are local government organisations, many of them Conservative-controlled? Will he also recognise that in a period such as the present, with ruinously high interest rates, the late payment of bills can mean the death of small firms? If legislation is not appropriate in this matter, will he give consideration to the Government backing a code of practice, which can then be operative in the field?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman obviously recognises the problem that I identified in my answer to the substantive question. It is important that we should stop short of legislation, as he seems to be suggesting, because a problem may arise where small firms may not be paying the bills of other small firms on time and where small firms may not be paying the bills of large firms on time. I should prefer to see some code of practice initiated by industry rather than by the Government.

Mr. Dickens: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the measures that he has introduced to help small businesses in Britain, for which they are deeply grateful, but is he aware that many of the small companies in Britain are having inflicted upon them the large companies, who are dining out on the overdrafts of those small companies, and that many of those large companies are enjoying massive Government contracts? Is it at all possible that one or two of those companies could be exposed as late payers to help the small businesses?

Mr. Trippier: I doubt whether there would have been anything wrong if my hon. Friend had chosen to expose one or two of those companies in his question to me. If there is evidence that a number of large companies are delaying the payment of bills, I shall be grateful to receive it so that we can look at it more carefully.

Mr. O'Brien: I have noted the reply to the question from the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). Will the Minister also have regard to the problems facing small industry and the help and protection that it needs because of water charges? Will he have a word with his colleagues—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the late payment of bills.

Mr. O'Brien: This is a problem, because the water authorities demand payment immediately and the increase in water charges is causing a problem for small firms. Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues to try to get some easement for small firms?

Mr. Trippier: Certainly I am prepared to discuss the matter with my colleagues in the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister recognise that, disastrous enough in itself as the 4 per cent. increase in interest rates has been for small firms, that increase worsens the problems outlined in the initial question? Will he further recognise that not only does it make it massively more expensive for small firms to finance the cash gap


caused by this practice by large firms, but the higher rate of interest encourages large firms to delay payments even more?

Mr. Trippier: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday at Question Time, it is a disappointment to see interest rates at this level. We all hope that the present level of interest rates is only temporary. As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, the effect could be worse if inflation were to rip as it did under the Labour Administration. I must take the opportunity to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I welcome his new interest in small firms. We were appalled when in a debate on small firms on 18 January the official Opposition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is also a bit wide of the subject of late payment of bills.

Small Firms Service

Mr. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for improving publicity for the small firms service.

Mr. Trippier: I am keen to ensure that small business men are fully aware of the advice and information available from the small firms service. We are at present advertising in the national and regional press to promote greater use of the service.

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Why is it thought necessary to run a Government information service through the small firms service when private initiatives are being taken in this regard?

Mr. Trippier: The small firms service provides a national facility, which offers consistent quality. It does not seek to compete with other initiatives, which are very welcome. It is a complementary service to local initiatives. Those services offered at local level are very much appreciated.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the Minister attempt to ensure not only that the small firms service is known throughout the community but that small firms are assisted to become known throughout the world? The deputation that is to go to China does not, so far as I am aware, contain any representatives of small firms. That is a great disappointment to small firms in my part of the world. What steps has his Department taken to ensure that small firms are represented on such delegations?

Mr. Trippier: Small firms are normally well represented on delegations abroad and the British Overseas Trade Board is anxious to encourage that. I shall certainly consider seriously the particular point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Robert Atkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he has done for the small firms service. Does he not agree that there is room for involving people apart from those who would otherwise be retired in giving advice to potential small business men on developing businesses, in that the older people tend to be slightly out of touch with current developments concerning small business advice?

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am anxious to encourage people who are working in industry, some who are semi-retired and some who are retired, to

come forward. Many of them will have a significant contribution to make. It is important to underline that in the local enterprise agency movement mushrooming throughout the country we have a source of business counselling dealing with problems at the sharp end, which is invaluable.

Mr. Haynes: Does the Minister recall that in the 1979 election campaign the Conservative party said that it intended to help small businesses because that was where jobs would come from? Since then, year by year, more and more small firms have fallen by the wayside. Does he appreciate that if nothing is done about that problem there will be no small businesses left to publicise?

Mr. Trippier: If the hon. Gentleman would open his ears rather than his mouth, a whole new world might be opened up to him. As I pointed out in reply to an earlier question, a net increase in small firms in this country has led to greater employment. I am glad that he referred to the commitment to small firms in our 1979 manifesto. We have consistently continued that commitment, but it was notably absent from the Labour party manifesto in 1979 and also in 1983.

Contributions to Political Parties

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to place contributions by companies to political parties or for other political purposes on the same legal footing as contributions by trade unions to political parties or for other political purposes.

Mr. Tebbit: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Secretary of State explain why trade unions need to have a political fund and are now required to have a ballot, but companies do not need a political fund before contributing to political parties? Does he recognise that the way in which the Government have used their majority in this Parliament can only be described as a form of political corruption?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not recognise that at all. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that companies and trade unions are governed by completely different statutes and are set up for completely different purposes. He would be the last person to want standards of company law applied to trade unions. If they were so applied, I can think of at least one prominent trade unionist today who would probably have been prosecuted for the way in which he has debased the union for which he works, destroyed its power, corrupted its members and wasted its money.

Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the annual general meeting of a company allows shareholders to express their opinions each year? Does he further agree that it would be a good thing if trade union members had the same right to express an opinion in that way each year?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes, I do. Again, however, my hon. Friend must not assume that unions and companies should be run in the same way or governed by the same kind of statute. One must also keep a sense of proportion in these matters. In 1981, for example, in respect of their political funds trade unions spent £4·8 million or 12·8 per cent. of the amount that they spent on benefits to their members. When companies donate money to political parties it is more like 0·02 per cent. of profit or turnover. [HON.


MEMBERS: "What is the total?"] According to The Economist, the total is about £2·5 million. Moreover, the figure that I gave for trade unions excludes spending such as the £1 million campaign to "Kill the Bill" — a Bill which is now in good health as an Act of Parliament and helping to democratise trade unions. My figure also excluded £1 million spending by NALGO on another fruitless exercise against the interests of its members.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: If the Secretary of State is ever tempted to go down that road, will he stop the nonsense of having ballots on the existence of political funds and instead introduce ballots for the party to which the funds should be donated? Is he aware that that would prevent the current attempt by the Labour party to camouflage the fact that 80 per cent. of the political funds of the trade union movement go straight into Labour party coffers?

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but I wish there was more consistency in these matters. Perhaps he will tell us at some time whether the president of the SDP, Mrs. Shirley Williams, asked for ballots of members of APEX when it was giving money to the Labour party, and whether the SDP has sought and obtained donations from companies without requiring the companies to ask their shareholders.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Accepting the Secretary of State's point about the need for a sense of proportion on the matter and the fact that the laws for trade unions and companies are different, would it not be a good idea to consider this from the point of view of the House? If it is right to control political expenditure by trade unions, surely it is equally right to control it by companies. If he considered it that way, could we not have an interesting argument and dialogue and come to a conclusion that accepts both sides and is not based on party dogma?

Mr. Tebbit: It is always a sign of a pretty rocky case in the House when an hon. Member says, "Let us decide this without reference to party dogma". One knows that the hon. Member is trying to slip a quick one in somewhere.
There are no controls on the amount that trade unions may spend on politics. Much of the money that they spent on what the man in the street would see as a political campaign, such as "Kill the Bill" was not regarded as political spending. Equally, when a company's board of directors decides that money should be spent in the interests of the shareholders, it is surely reasonable that they should be able to do so, and that is done against the background of the Companies Acts and the requirement for a meeting of shareholders.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing wrong in any company giving a political donation? If Opposition Members care to read any annual report, they will realise that all declarations in excess of £500 are already declared.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is right. Once again one has to look at these things in the round. I am indebted to the New Statesman of 30 November 1984, in which I read that part of the Labour party's jobs and industry campaign for this year includes a strong recommendation that the Labour party should approach companies for political donations. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) should speak to his own party about these matters.

Mr. John Smith: Despite all the attempts by the Secretary of State to cloud the issue, is it not crystal clear to any fair-minded person that what the Government want to see is special controls on the political funds operated by trade unions but none whatsoever on the companies and corporate forces that support the Conservative party? Is that not blatantly and grossly unfair from any standpoint?

Mr. Tebbit: No. There are controls in each case, but because of the different natures of the organisations they are different controls. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the 1908 Act, which first arranged the compact, as one might call it—

Mr. Smith: 1913.

Mr. Tebbit: I think that the 1908 Act was the first. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right on the date. The Act in question provided that the union had to have a ballot of its members to authorise the setting-up of a fund. Whether those ballots were held just after 1908 or 1913, there cannot be many of that electorate who are still left around and it is about time there was another ballot.

Anglo-Soviet Trade

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what prospects for increased Anglo-Soviet trade resulted from the recent visit of Mr. Gorbachev.

Mr. Channon: When I met Mr. Gorbachev last month we agreed that trade between our two countries should be developed on a long-term basis. Mr. Gorbachev said that he hoped for an increase in trade of 40 to 50 per cent. in the short term and we discussed a number of opportunities that would help us to achieve this objective. These are now being actively pursued by the companies concerned.

Mr. Cockeram: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Russian promises to ease restrictions on mutual trade are borne out in practice, and further ensure that when Russian cruise ships, which offer lower grade cruises than Britian's luxury cruise ships, use British ports they receive fair and equal treatment?

Mr. Channon: I shall be delighted to look at the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Bankruptcies

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms went bankrupt in 1984; and what is the total number of bankruptcies since 1979.

Mr. Fletcher: Provisional 1984 figures for Great Britain are 8,509 bankruptcies and 14,210 company liquidations. In the six years 1979 to 1984 there were 34,862 bankruptcies and 61,785 company liquidations. The bankruptcy figures include deeds of arrangement, and cover all individuals and partnerships.

Mr. Brown: Does the Minister agree that the figures are a terrible indictment of his Government? How many more firms will go bust as the pound declines and interest rates reach record level, s? Will he tell us the truth for a change?

Mr. Fletcher: I shall tell the hon. Member another truth — the number of new company starts is also at a


record level with almost 100,000 new starts in 1984 alone. In other major industrial countries the number of bankruptcies and insolvencies in the last few years has been very high. Perhaps the next time that the hon. Gentleman visits the Red Army in Afghanistan he will stop off at one or two countries and find out for himself.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that many bankruptcies are caused by poor management, but that occasionally companies run into difficulties because of unfair trade barriers set up by other countries? Is my hon. Friend aware that Siemens sell telex machines and telecommunications equipment on the British market and that other companies, such as Olivetti, have telex equipment on sale and approved in this market but that British telex and telcommunications manufacturers are not allowed to sell in Italy, Germany, Japan, France and most other countries?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he can provide details I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will look into that.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister be realistic and rectify what is happening in my constituency, where virtually every week, without fail, bankruptcies occur? Is the Minister aware that the construction company for which I worked, which is now over 100 years old, will close its doors on 1 February? Is he also aware that, because of Government policy, that company has gone out of commission? Does the Minister remember the 1979 Conservative manifesto in which promises were made to smaller companies and to industrialists in general? Finally is he aware that companies are now sadly disillusioned with the Government? Pray God that they will vote Labour at the next general election.

Mr. Fletcher: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman seeks aid from yet another place. The point is that manufacturing investment in companies in the market today amounted to £6 billion in the year to September 1984. That was up 16 per cent. on the year before. Retail sales were up 4·5 per cent. in real terms in 1984 compared with 1983. There is no shortage of demand in the market. The challenge is for British companies to meet that demand.

Mr. Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that a number of firms in the city of Leicester went bankrupt because they were crucified by a monstrous rate bill imposed by the city council?

Mr. Fletcher: I am sure that that is correct. It applies to many companies, especially small companies, throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gould: Is the Minister aware that because the deposit on a debtor's petition and the minimum debt to support a creditor's petition were increased by 100 per cent. and 120 per cent. respectively in October last year, the figures which he has just given the House do not fully reflect the full severity of this immense and record surge in business failures? Is the Minister further aware that if the figures are disaggregated they cast a yet more unflattering light on Government policy because they show that, following the imposition of VAT on home improvements, business failures among glazing firms have doubled and that even in high technolgy — computer manufacturers and distributors — so much touted as a success by the Government, the failures have doubled?

Mr. Fletcher: Even taking into account the increase in the debtor's petition, the monthly figures show a levelling off in the number of bankruptcies.

Regional Aid

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many recent representations he has received on his decision to alter the criteria governing regional aid.

Mr. Butcher: About 120 written submissions on the changes in regional industrial policy have been received since my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry announced them on 28 November. Ministers in the Department have also had a number of discussions with right hon. and hon. Members and others about local and general industrial development questions against the background of the new policy.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State concede that the five or six criteria in the new policy for regional aid are adequate to respond neither to the underlying unemployment trends, such as job vacancies or youth or long-term unemployment, nor to the inherent industrial problems of an area such as mine in north Staffordshire? Will he recognise that his plans leave an area such as north Staffordshire in a worse position, sandwiched as it is between two areas to which he has given aid? Will he therefore reconsider his plans?

Mr. Butcher: I fully understand the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's question, particularly in the light of the pending early redundancies. However, I hope he will agree with me that there was no other way for the Government to proceed but upon objective criteria, impartially applied, and paying due cognisance to the core factor, which was the absolute level of unemployment and the level of long-term unemployment. On that basis, and on the travel-to-work-area basis, unfortunately — or perhaps one should say fortunately — Stoke was not sufficiently disadvantaged to qualify.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will my hon. Friend accept that the west midlands welcomes the modest change in regional aid in our area, but could he help us about what the effect will be upon BL, a company which is owned in the majority by the taxpayer? Although in the past BL needed aid to save it from bankruptcy, it has now become a successful company. Are the Government, as the major shareholder, willing to invest further in its success so as to secure the jobs that are most desperately needed by the motor industry and the west midlands.

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend referred to the new changes as modest, but I am bound to say that industrialists in the Birmingham area do not see it in that light. I would cite as evidence the fact that 2,000 companies have already made inquiries about the workings of the system, of which 10 are from the inner city area of Birmingham, with which I know my hon. Friend has some preoccupation. As for BL, we look at its applications for various forms of assistance on their merits, but at the moment there is no application, either formal or informal, before us. We are also anxious to continue the support that we give to the BL component suppliers, which BL regards as a very important part of the industry.

Mr. Wilson: On top of the Government's recent discriminatory refusal to give to Scottish old-age


pensioners the heating allowances that they are dishing out in the south of England and in the midlands, does the hon. Gentleman not understand that in Scotland we feel that we are also being discriminated against on industrial aid—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to relate the hon. Member's question to regional aid.

Mr. Wilson: I did, Mr. Speaker, refer to industrial aid. What proposals do the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have for restoring to the Scottish economy the £100 million that they have embezzled from it?

Mr. Butcher: I find that a most incredible assertion. Scotland has received significant aid,, from this Administration and from many other Administrations during the last two or three decades. Not only has Scotland received significant aid, but the Scots were not discriminated against during the last evaluation of assisted area status. Scotland has been subjected to exactly the same criteria as the rest of the country.

Small Firms Service

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries the small firms service answered during 1984.

Mr. Trippier: During 1984 the small firms service dealt with 279,201 inquiries in Great Britain.

Mr. Smith: Is this not a most encouraging figure? Does it not demonstrate quite clearly the resurgence of interest in the starting up of new businesses? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the quality of the advice that is being given as well as with the quantity?

Mr. Trippier: I agree with my hon. Friend that the figure is encouraging. For counselling cases it seems to improve year on year. I am very proud of the small firms service. Nevertheless, it should be reviewed. I am concentrating upon a review of that service right now.

GATT

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether Her Majesty's Government favour a new round of negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

Mr. Channon: Yes, provided the preparatory discussions show good prospects of success.

Mr. Carlisle: When are these talks likely to take place? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom depends very heavily upon trade and that we must aim further to reduce barriers? Therefore, when these talks take place will my right hon. Friend insist that those countries to which we experience difficulty in exporting freely, such as Spain and Japan, significantly reduce their trade barriers?

Mr. Channon: It would be a prime aim during the talks and in other fora to ensure a genuine opening-up of the Japanese market. With Spain coming into the European Community, there will be free trade between Spain and the rest of the Community in a comparatively short time. No one can yet tell whether there will be a round of talks on the GATT, but I think that there will preliminary talks this year and every likelihood of substantive talks towards the end of the year.

Cheese (Exports)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total volume of cheese exported from the United Kingdom in 1984.

Mr. Channon: Thirty-two thousand tonnes of cheese and curd were exported in 1984.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that producers in my constituency have been advised that they should expect a cut in the exports of cheese to markets such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the Caribbean? Are the Government taking any steps to impose such an artificial restriction? If so, what is the reason for that?

Mr. Channon: Some of those points are probably matters for my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales. I know of no plans deliberately to limit exports. We export a great deal of cheese, not only to the countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but to Algeria. A great deal of Cheddar cheese is exported all over the world.

Foreign Affairs Council

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker I should like to make a statement about the Foreign Affairs Council that met in Brussels on 28 and 29 January 1985. I represented the United Kingdom. Ministerial conferences with Spain and Portugal were held within the margins of the Council.
Ministers discussed outstanding points in the negotiations with both Spain and Portugal on agriculture, fisheries and social affairs. We remain determined to conclude the negotiations to allow the date of 1 January 1986 for Spanish and Portuguese accession to be met.
The Council discussed the financing of the 1985 budget and the text of the new own-resources decision. More detailed work will now be done. The Council will return to this subject in February.
The Council considered the new Canadian restrictions on Community beef exports. I urged others to work for a satisfactory negotiated outcome.
Ministers of the Ten, in political co-operation, issued a short statement regretting the failure of the New York high-level meeting on Cyprus and calling for the resumption of negotiations. Copies of the statement have been deposited in the Library of the House.
At an intergovernmental conference in the margins of the Council, Foreign Ministers appointed the Vice-Presidents of the new Commission.

Mr. George Robertson: I thank the Foreign Secretary for making his statement so generously. It is important that the House has the chance to seek information on progress or, equally important, lack of progress made in these crucial meetings—all the more so since it seems that the failure of the Council means that the Community is yet again steering complacently towards paralysis.
Is it not true that the failure to make progress at the Foreign Affairs Council seriously endangers any chance of resolving the chronic and almost perpetual calendar of EEC financial crises? No progress was made on a new budget to replace the one rejected by the European Parliament; no progress is being made to resolve demands on the integrated Mediterranean programmes, which threatens a Greek veto on Spanish and Portuguese accession; no progress was made on the accession negotiations themselves, which must be completed urgently if they are to be ratified in 10 countries on time; as a consequence, no progress can be made on increasing own resources, which will be necessary to pay the Prime Minister's much trumpeted rebate.
Is not this sad and sorry mess proof positive of the emptiness of the fine words at Fontainebleau? Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether the new budget Commissioner, Henning Christopherson, did warn Foreign Ministers yesterday that agriculture expenditure will exceed income by over £1 billion—nearly 2 billion ecus? If so, precisely where will Britain's rebate now come from? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary consider reducing our monthly payments to the EEC by one twelfth of our expected rebate, in the light of the accounting nightmare that is yet to come? Thirdly, when does the Foreign Secretary expect ratification of Spanish and Portuguese accession to be before this Parliament?
Will the Foreign Secretary give the elusive guarantee that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office failed to give during last week's debate, that no more special payments will be demanded of this House this year to fund the endemic inability of the Community to control farm spending?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) on his accession to the position of principal spokesman on European Community affairs on the Opposition Front Bench. I encourage him to avoid the somewhat histrionic attempt at dramatisation which characterised his intervention this afternoon.
There was a routine meeting yesterday at which discussion took place on all the matters that I have identified. The suggestion that we are steering complacently towards paralysis, and all other fanciful language of that sort, is beside the point and remote from the truth. We discussed the matters that I have identified. We do not accept the warning of the new vice-president in charge of the budget of an overrun of the estimated expenditure on agriculture. We were not given any justification for the figures yesterday, and we shall want to challenge them and examine them most closely. It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that in 1984 the original Commission figure of 2·3 billion ecu was in the end reduced to 1 billion ecu.
It is universally acknowledged that provision must be made by the conclusion of discussions for the United Kingdom abatement to be made on the revenue side in accordance with the Fontainebleau conclusions.
As I said in my statement, we expect the accession and enlargement negotiations to be completed to enable ratification of enlargement to be presented and to take place on 1 January 1986.
As for any other matters being brought before the House, the object of the exercise is to secure a conclusion that will cover the overrun already established in the 1985 budget and to secure implementation of the Fontainebleau summit agreement on our own resources.

Mr. Eric Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, no matter how desirable he may consider the political aims of enlargement, there is nothing particularly magical about January 1986 and that it is much more important to get the negotiations correct than to conclude them early and on the wrong terms? The overriding importance is to get the negotiations right in terms of United Kingdom interests and those of existing Community members rather than to let in two new members on the wrong terms.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with the importance of the objectives that my hon. Friend has described. It is important also to seek to achieve them in accordance with the foreshadowed timetable. We shall seek to achieve both.

Dr. David Owen: Although the Foreign Secretary has spoken of a routine meeting, are we being led to believe that, with the unprecedented instability of oil prices and exchange markets, the Council did not discuss, at least on the margin, the problems that this presents to the Community of 10? What was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude in any such discussion, especially as we are now producing 2·5 million


barrels a day while Saudi Arabian production is down to 3·5 million barrels? The United Kingdom is therefore a significant factor in oil prices. Was the question of British membership of the exchange rate part of the EMS discussed, and, if not, why not?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Neither of those questions was raised. It was a meeting neither of the Energy Council nor of the Finance Ministers' Council. We were addressing ourselves to the agenda before us.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend is seized of the importance of not entering into a new and heavy financial commitment until he knows that the EEC is in a position to meet its existing financial commitments as well as the additional ones. Must this not control any putative date of enlarging the EEC if it cannot meet its existing financial commitments with its existing resources? Until that conundrum is resolved, how can we contemplate increasing the liabilities of the EEC?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is precisely why all these issues are being addressed together. We are covering the 1985 budget overrun, the completion of the enlargement negotiations and the establishment of the own resources position. These issues were discussed yesterday.

Mr. David Winnick: Did the Foreign Affairs Council discuss, or does it intend discussing, the question of having some celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the victory over Nazism and the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny? Is it intended to make a protest to the Austrian authorities over the way in which a senior Austrian Minister went out of his way personally to welcome back a notorious Nazi mass murderer who had just been released by the Italian authorities?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has some interest in that topic, but it was not one to which the Community addressed itself yesterday. Nor would it have been appropriate to have done so, it being a matter arising within the Government of a state which is not a member of the Community. The question of the commemoration of the conclusion of hostilities in Europe is being considered substantially as a matter for national Governments.

Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the proper concern that is being expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the financial cost of the entry of Spain and Portugal to the Community, is it not more than ever essential to emphasise the paramount political importance of ensuring that those two countries, recently returned to democratic Government, are firmly anchored in the Western community?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Did the Foreign Affairs Council consider the important problem of famine in the sub-Sahara? If so, was it recalled that in September there was a promise that 250,000 tonnes of grain would be delivered, as against the reality of 13,000 tonnes delivered, despite the fact that the grain mountains are still growing?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: That was not discussed yesterday — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] — because the Community's conclusions about the supply of grain to meet the needs identified by the hon. Member for

Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) were agreed at the Dublin summit, on a commitment to supply 1·2 million tonnes of grain, and the substantial food aid commitments made by the Community in November are being delivered now.

Sir Dudley Smith: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the vexed question of Cyprus. Will he encourage his European colleagues to put some moral pressure on the Greek Cypriots to negotiate more meaningfully with the Turkish Cypriots to try to reach a reasonable conclusion?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: In the course of the discussions yesterday, and in the course of the discussions I had last week with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, we made clear our expectation and hope that both sides would continue to negotiate with the utmost seriousness in the context of the initiative taken by the Secretary-General.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Was there a report before the Council of those states which had ratified the intergovernmental agreement which raised a loan for the EEC's 1984 budget? In the opinion of the Council, what article of the Treaty of Rome authorises the EEC to spend over its own resources, for 1984 or in any subsequent year when it needs to do so?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: There was no discussion of that subject in the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the intergovernmental agreement has been before this House in relation to the position that arose last year.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I welcome the prospect of Spain and Portugal becoming full members of the Community. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree, however, that the administrative costs of the EEC are increasing at a colossal rate? Is he aware that the expenditure by the intervention board for agricultural produce last year was more than £1,300 million? Does he and his colleagues have any plans to change the system, for better or for worse?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is important that every effort is made to reduce and control those costs, and that will, no doubt, be a question to which the new Commission will be addressing itself.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hon. Members believe that these meetings are extremely valuable and take great pleasure in the knowledge that the accession talks are going well? How long will the transition arrangements last for the fishing agreement in respect of Spain?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the value of these meetings. It is important to understand that, although they do not give rise to high drama, they are important. The discussion yesterday enabled substantial advantages to be made in securing agreement on all these questions.
As for the fisheries regime for Spain, the main issues are still under negotiation, and that concerns the length of the transition arrangement and its possible extension, in the event of no agreement being reached in the original period.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: On the breakdown of the talks on Cyprus, how on earth can the Foreign Secretary or Mr. Pérez de Cuellar expect progress


to be made if Mr. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot representative, under instructions from General Evren of the Turkish Government, was not allowed to discuss the following issues: first, the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus; secondly, the free movement of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots; and, thirdly, the unification of a single currency? In those circumstances, will the Foreign Secretary make further representations to the Turkish Government to ensure that next time they meet there is an open agenda on the table allowing full discussion of those items?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to offer the House his view of the present state of the negotiations. His view contrasts with that offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith). Both sides need to be urged to make every effort to bridge the gap between them. Before the last round of talks, the Secretary-General made an assessment that the gap between them had never been so narrow. I know that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) attaches importance to closing the gap. I assure him that we shall continue to give every support and encouragement to the parties concerned, the other countries interested and the Secretary-General. I should not like to express a judgment about the two views that have been offered on both sides of the House.

Mr. Anthony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain to a puzzled public why when we joined the Community we had to pay through the nose for the privilege, whereas when the Spanish and Portuguese seek to join the Community the Community has to pay through the nose for the privilege?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: At the time we joined the Community we were subject to a substantial transitional period which was designed to meet our particular circumstances. There will be negotiations about the transitional arrangements for the two new countries applying for membership. The negotiations must take account of the relative poverty of those countries.

Mr. Allan Roberts: When the Foreign Secretary last reported what happened at a Foreign Affairs Council he claimed that arrangements had been made to ensure that, when Spain and Portugal joined the Common Market, an olive oil lake would not be created. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also gave assurances at that time that action would be taken to reduce the beef and butter mountains and the wine lake. Although I have recently enjoyed cheap butter from the EEC, I point out that the butter mountain has not been reduced significantly and the wine lake is still growing. How confident can we be that an olive oil lake will not be created when Spain and Portugal join the Common Market? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that if there is an olive oil lake it will not be mixed in with the wine lake?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to draw attention to the importance of maintaining strict discipline in the control of agricultural policy. For that reason, we are insisting upon a tight price regime for decisions in accordance with the financial guidelines that have been adopted and for the effective application of

guaranteed thresholds to the commodities already covered by them. It is important that that regime should apply to olive oil as to other products.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Although many of us welcome the accession date and hope that this time it will be adhered to, will the Foreign Secretary explain the budgetary arrangements for Portugal, which is one of the poorest countries? The Treaty of Rome mentions the need to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that Portugal will not be a net contributor and that the accession arrangements affecting the budget are satisfactory?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Lady is correct in drawing attention to that matter as being important to Portugal. In that context I drew attention yesterday to the need for the Commission to bring forward proposals to deal with the own resources chapter of the enlargement negotiations.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that my political friends in Portugal were very disappointed when the 1984 date for entry was not achieved and that, after 50 years of brutal dictatorship, they are anxious to join the Common Market and will be extremely distressed if the January 1986 date is not achieved? I welcome the Foreign Secretary's determination, but what are the specific issues involved and which countries are likely to cause a hold-up at this stage?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Questions of some difficulty still remain, especially in relation to fisheries and some parts of the agriculture dossier. Establishing a fair balance of interests within the Community and with the applicant countries is bound to take some time, but I recognise the importance of what the hon. Gentleman says about Portugal's view of accession to the community.

Mr. George Foulkes: At a time of great and mounting crisis within the Community, the Foreign Secretary has given a picture of two days of total inaction. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has said, we consider it a disgrace that there was no discussion about aid to Ethiopia. The reality is quite different from the picture drawn by the Foreign Secretary. A written reply that I have received revealed that only 13,000 tonnes of grain have arrived in sub-Saharan Africa, whereas 1·2 million tonnes had been promised and there are now 12 million tonnes in store.
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that time is running out for a decision on the accession of Spain and Portugal and the consequent decision about increasing VAT and own resources, both of which have to be ratified independently by the 10 sovereign Parliaments, and the delay to which jeopardises our abatement? What contingency plans does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have for dealing with that?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that the Government's policy on Europe now appears to be as big a shambles as their economic policy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I caution the hon. Gentleman against over-excitement about the alleged mounting crisis that he perceives. The Community is addressing itself to the business of completing the necessary instruments to cover the overrun on the budget this year, to provide for


The own resources decision that is necessary to fulfil Fontainebleau and to complete the enlargement negotiations.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must not allow time to run out. We are pressing ahead with the urgency that I consider necessary. The hon. Gentleman must not believe that, because I do not report to the House each month a series of either conflicts or dramatic conclusions, no progress is being made. Progress was made on the matters discussed yesterday, and that is a good thing.

Early-Day Motions

Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that this morning you were personally involved in refusing an early-day motion that I wished to table. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has today tabled an early-day motion condemning the University of Oxford for not giving an award to the Prime Minister. My early-day motion would have pointed out that Droylesden Littlemoss boys' county secondary modern school has not recognised its own favourite and most distinguished son, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts).
Is it a sign of the class nature of the present Parliament that it is in order to table an early-day motion about the University of Oxford, but not in order to table an early-day motion about a secondary modern school? If you have turned down my request, Mr. Speaker, would you reconsider that decision? Many Labour Members who attended secondary modern schools find it offensive that those schools are not recognised in the same way as the University of Oxford.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was deeply honoured when my colleagues came to me and suggested that my secondary modern school should be honouring me as it is suggested that the Prime Minister should be honoured by Oxford and Cambridge. It is suggested that the failure to honour me was a slight and it now appears that, as the early-day motion has been refused, there is an insult to my school as well. It gave me a good education — far better than the type of class education that is given at Oxford and Cambridge.
I am worried because the Clerk told me that the early-day motion would not be allowed because it was designed to annoy. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that any early-day motion that suggests that there is something wonderful about honorary degrees from Oxford and Cambridge when there are no honours from Droylesden Littlemoss boys' county secondary modern school, which educated me, is not designed to annoy anyone except me, because that school gave me a very good education. I therefore hope that you will allow the early-day motion.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While you are ruling on the point of order raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), will you say whether it is in order to table a motion congratulating Oxford university on showing such good sense and making a decision that will be welcomed by most people?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's point is a hypothetical question at the moment.
As for the first point of order, if the hon. Members for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) study "Erskine May", as I am sure they do, they will find that on page 382 it states clearly that an early-day motion of this type has been turned down by my predecessors because it is
tendered in a spirit of mockery".

Mr. Boyes: rose—

Mr. Allan Roberts: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled, and in accordance with precedent. There is nothing more to be said.

Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Boyes: Yes. I now have to clear my own name. I study "Erskine May" every night before I go to sleep. There was no intention of directing mockery towards the Prime Minister but rather a desire to recognise the role of secondary modern schools. Would it be possible to have an audience of you, Mr. Speaker, to see whether there is any way around "Erskine May"?

Mr. Speaker: It would be a pleasure.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether, in the discussions, we could take account of how many Clerks and Officers of the House went to Oxford and Cambridge.

Mr. Speaker: I should be very happy if the hon. Member for Bootle joined the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington.

Pensioners' Right to Fuel and Communications

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish standing charges for gas, electricity and water and to abolish rental charges for telephones and television licences for pensioners.
Several Bills on this subject have been introduced previously, but we are now in the midst of a severe winter during which many pensioners are not eating properly, are going to bed early and are suffering badly from hypothermia because they cannot afford to pay heating bills and therefore keep themselves warm and in health.
I present the Bill with a sense of urgency and hope that the House will take serious note of it. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asked during election campaigns whether they support the principle of standing charges being applied to pensioners and have answered that they do not.
The House should be aware that pensioners are treated badly. I should be happy if the Government presented proposals for a serious and real increase in the old-age pension. The real problem for pensioners is poverty. Although my Bill would help to alleviate that poverty, the real problem is the low level of the state pension. Many pensioners organisations are fed up with the patronising attitude of political leaders and newspapers at festive times, especially as they are forgotten for the rest of the year. I hope that the Bill will be widely supported.
I propose the abolition of standing charges for gas and electricity for pensioners, and that there should not be an immediate increase in the unit cost of gas and electricity. The cost of abolition, which was estimated at £300 million in a recent parliamentary answer to me from the Department of Energy, should be borne by the Government only, so that the real cost of gas and electricity will be lower for pensioners than for other people.
At present a rebate scheme on standing charges is in operation. If a standing charge is less than half the total bill for gas or electricity, it is reduced accordingly. Surely that shows acceptance of the principle that the standing charge is wrong because it is a tax on those who consume least. An example of how the rebate principle does not help pensioners is the fact that more than half the people who benefit from it are not old-age pensioners, nor necessarily small consumers, but owners of second homes who leave the heating on to prevent their second homes from freezing up in winter. As the Government accepts the principle of the rebate scheme, they must accept the principle that standing charges are fundamentally wrong.
In 1976, in a report on the issue of standing charges, the Department of Energy said:
We are satisfied that there is a sound case in economic principle for a tariff structure under which standing charges are maintained separate from the unit consumption charge.
I do not understand what the Department means by that, but I know that there is no social case for it. It is a penalty on the poorest people to continue making standing charges on them.
After I tabled a similar Bill in July 1984, I received a great deal of correspondence from pensioners' groups throughout the country and from some fuel boards which were interested in the thinking behind the proposals. They


said that we had exaggerated the position, but I am not sure that we have. Since last July the standing charge on gas credit consumers has been £9·90. Information available as of that date shows that the average standing charge for an average household has been 0·54 per cent. of its total income, and that for a single pensioner it has been 2·24 per cent. In other words, it costs pensioners 4·5 times as much as anyone else. At that time the pension was £34·05, which meant that pensioners were paying 76p a week in gas standing charges alone. A reduction of 76p a week from the gas bill would help many pensioners. The same applies to electricity and other bills. The water standing charge, which should also be abolished, operates on the same principle.
I include in the Bill the abolition of the television licence fee for pensioners. A television is a basic and necessary form of communication for many people, especially single elderly people. We live in a highly mobile society. In my constituency and many others, many elderly people have no young relatives living near them. Often the young relatives have gone to live in the new town areas. That adds to pensioners' sense of isolation. A television licence fee of £46 is a monstrous charge on pensioners for their basic form of communication. It is not a luxury. The abolition of that fee for pensioners is a small price to pay to help them.
The same applies to telephone rentals for the elderly. Telephones are a basic necessity for many elderly people. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 recognises that principle. Some chronically sick, elderly people can get telephones, but only with great difficulty. Under the Government's rate-capping proposals many local authorities will no longer be able to meet that need. Although many people are not chronically sick within the exact terms of the Act, they desperately need and rely on a telephone. They tend to be small users, and use it when they are in trouble to call friends, neighbours or the emergency services, or to receive calls from relatives who live far away. Often the rental for the phone is the major part of the Bill, and in some cases it is virtually the entire bill.
With this Bill I am asking the House to take note of the tremendous poverty among elderly people. If the Government are prepared, as they apparently are, to spend £5·2 billion of public money to break the miners' strike, why do they not spend the same sum on making real improvements to the living standards of our poorest elderly people? The Government should seek to do that, rather than take £1 from the heating allowance of elderly people as they did in November.
They are many dreadful stories about pensioners who have been extremely badly treated by the fuel boards, and who have been threatened with disconnection or been disconnected because they could not pay their bills. The

Citizens Advice Bureaux in London produced a report entitled, "Cold Comfort For The Poor." One of the examples that it gives is as follows:
Pensioner (73 years) receiving retirement pension and occupational pension. In debt to both LEB and NTG. Gas bill of £96 on which the CAB is trying to negotiate fuel direct, which is finally refused since the client is ineligible for supplementary benefit due to income. By this time the debt is £208. Client offers £10 per week, NTG demand £96 (the amount brought forward) before they will accept weekly amount. Client cannot afford this. LEB bill of £66 — negotiated with Board to pay off £3 per week. Gas disconnected.
Imagine what that pensioner is going through without gas for cooking or heating during these cold winter nights. That is the kind of poverty that we face.
There is a great deal of misunderstanding about whether special help is available for pensioners. There is not. A large number of charities do their best to help, but a pensioner is not eligible for special help unless he is eligible for supplementary benefit, as is the case with everyone else. Pensioners need warmer rooms than the rest of us, and warm food. They are in their homes for longer than the rest of us and tend not to go out, especially during the winter. Therefore, their fuel bills are of major concern to them, as is the payment of their telephone bills and the television licence fee.
I hope that my Bill will help those people. While disconnections of gas and electricity supplies continue this winter, and while old people are frightened to turn on the gas fire, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that 84 per cent. of disconnections—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has now spoken for 10 minutes.

Mr. Corbyn: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Eighty-four per cent. of people about to be disconnected draw state benefits, 80 per cent. receive less than £70 a week, and 60 per cent. have debts in addition to fuel debts. The matter is serious and urgent. The Bill will help elderly people to achieve decency in retirement. The House should recognise that need immediately and support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms. Jo Richardson, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Frank Dobson, Mr. Ron Davies and Mr. Tom Clarke.

PENSIONERS' RIGHT TO FUEL AND COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: accordingly presented a Bill to bring in a Bill to abolish standing charges for gas, electricity and water and to abolish rental charges for telephones and television licences for pensioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 February and to be printed. [Bill 67.]

Airports Inquiries 1981–1983 (Inspector's Report)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]

Mr. Speaker: Before we start on this important debate, may I tell the House that so far I have had applications by letter from no fewer than 44 right hon. and hon. Members. I propose to adopt the 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 o'clock and 8.50 pm, but I hope that in view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate all speeches will be reasonably brief, please.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): In opening this debate we are honouring the commitment that we gave during the Second Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill that the House would have an opportunity to express its views on airports policy in the light of the inspector's report on the Stansted and Heathrow terminal 5 public inquiries before final decisions were reached.
I shall say a few words on the history of the matter and then on the procedures that we intend to follow.
Airports policy has exercised the minds of all Administrations, of whatever political persuasion, over a number of years. I shall not go back further into history than 1975–76, when the foundations of current airports policy were laid.
Following the decision to abandon the Maplin project, the then Labour Government published, in November 1975, part 1 of the "Airport Strategy for Great Britain", as a basis for further consultation. This set out a strategy for accommodating air traffic demand in the London area for the 1980s and identified several options to handle further growth in traffic in the longer term. Those included a fifth terminal at Heathrow, a second terminal at Gatwick, expansion of Stansted to a capacity of 16 million passengers per annum and further development at Luton.
In June 1976 the Government published the second part of that strategy, which dealt with the regional airports. This considered the way in which regional airports might be developed in the future and the possibilities of diverting traffic away from London to the regions. After extensive consultations on the basis of those documents, the then Labour Government announced their decisions in the airports policy White Paper in 1978.
Let me paraphrase the conclusions that were reached in that White Paper. It said that there was no case, in transport terms, for diverting traffic which had origins and destinations in the south-east to regional airports, and no case for the damage to the air transport industry which a policy of forced diversion would cause; that although some switch in traffic to the regions would occur naturally, this would not avoid the need for additional capacity in the south-east after 1990; that up to 1990, the growth in demand in the south-east should be accommodated by the provision of a fourth terminal at Heathrow, a second terminal at Gatwick, and the development of capacity at Luton and Stansted up to 5 million and 4 million passengers a year respectively; and that the Government would consider how demand might best be met beyond 1990. The possible solutions might be a major expansion

at Stansted, the development of an existing military airfield as a civil airport, or the construction of a new airport.
Following the White Paper, the then Secretary of State for Trade announced, in August 1978, the establishment of an Advisory Committee on Airports Policy and a Study Group on South-East Airports, in which the main interests concerned were represented. Their immediate task was to give detailed consideration to the options for accommodating air transport demand in the London area in the longer term.
When the Government took office in 1979, those two committees were part way through their work and we therefore awaited their reports before making any decisions on airports policy. The reports were published in December 1979 and their conclusions, which were broadly the same as those expressed in the 1978 White Paper, were accepted—that the development of regional airports could not obviate the need to meet demand in the south-east and that in the light of the forecasts then available further airports capacity would be needed in the south-east before 1990.
In line with this assessment, the then Secretary of State for Trade, Sir John Nott, as he later became, while giving the Government's support to the fullest possible use of regional airports, announced that the British Airports Authority would be invited to bring forward proposals for the development of Stansted to meet the expected growth in demand in the south-east; and that because this raised issues of considerable national and local importance, the proposals and the wider social and environmental implications would be thoroughly examined by means of a public inquiry. In accordance with this undertaking, the airports inquiries were opened in 1981 and ran through until well into 1983.
By any standards, the inspector's report is a colossal piece of work. In 1980 the then Secretary of State for Trade, Sir John Nott, said:
We intend the public inquiry to be wide-ranging and to give objectors an opportunity not only to expand on their objections to the Stansted proposal but also to question the need for a major airport expansion anywhere and to put forward alternative sites."—[Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 701.]
No one could doubt that that remit has been fulfilled. The inquiries lasted for 258 days, brought forth around 4,000 written representations, and took oral evidence from some 250 witnesses. It is appropriate at this point for me to record my thanks and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to the inspector, Mr. Graham Eyre, Q.C. and his two assessors, for the conscientious and efficient way in which they tackled and discharged their formidable task.
However, before Ministers now is the equally formidable—some would say more formidable—task of reaching decisions on the 20 formal recommendations made by the inspector. I am sure that I need not summarise the terms of the inspector's recommendations. I am sure also that the House, like my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself, will have read every word carefully over the Christmas recess.
The issues before us are complex. Hon. Members have read the inspector's report and the reasons which led to those recommendations. Therefore, I hope that this debate will provide the opportunity for hon. Members to express their views on all these issues.
On the procedural side, the debate is taking place on the Adjournment. I should say why, and also amplify what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on Thursday about the future parliamentary handling of this matter.
Normally, the inspector's report is published at the same time as the decision is issued. Although this is not the first time that there has been a debate in the House on a planning application before that application was determined, the holding of a debate in these particular circumstances presents certain difficulties.
Parliament has laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 a system for determining planning applications by the local planning authorities, and, in the event of an appeal or a calling-in of the application, by the Secretary of State. Members of the public have an opportunity to make objections, or other representations, to the local planning authority or to the Secretary of State, as the case may be. If the case comes before the Secretary of State, a public inquiry may be held.
There is no provision in the planning Acts for Parliament to play any role in determining planning appeals or called-in applications. The duty of making a decision in such cases has been placed, by Parliament, by the Act, on the Secretary of State, and he must, in discharging his duty, base his decision on the evidence before him, taking account of Government policy.
By holding a debate on a substantive motion and voting on it, the House could be held to be seriously prejudicing the proper exercise of our quasi-judicial function of determining the applications. While my right hon. Friend and I have the applications before us for decision we are unable to express any views on the issues covered in the inspector's report. To do so could prejudice our consideration of it. I know that the House understands and accepts that.

Dr. Alan Glyn: rose—

Mr. Ridley: In view of the extreme delicacy of my position in relation to not prejudicing that position, it would be better if I were not to respond to interventions. I know my hon. Friend will agree that on every other occasion I have always, I hope, been courteous to hon. Members who wish to intervene.
Thai would also mean that Ministers may not be able to vote — so as not to prejudice the decisions that my right hon. Friend and I will have to take — depriving about one sixth of the members of this House of the right to express their opinions.
Secondly, we have to consider what would be the effect of a vote on a substantive motion. Let us suppose that the House voted to reject the inspector's recommendations. If Ministers decided then to accept the recommendations, they would be disregarding the will of the House. But if they rejected the recommendations simply because that was the will of the House, rather than on the merits of the case, they would lay themselves open to challenge in the High Court. The parties affected, which could be numerous, could justly complain that the decisions were based on considerations extraneous to the inspector's report and that the whole painstaking process of public inquiry would be devalued.
I think the House will agree that the problem should be resolved as soon as possible, and that, consistent with proper consideration, is the Government's intention. Whatever hon. Members may think about the matters

before us, I doubt whether they want to subject the whole process to a further period of delay and uncertainty. There has been uncertainty about a third London airport for over 20 years. This uncertainty has borne not only on the people of Stansted, but on those living near Heathrow, Gatwick, and other sites which have been proposed in south-east England and beyond. There has been uncertainty also for the aviation industry and those employed in it. To prolong this uncertainty will not make the problem go away. It would merely mean that we would have to return to it at a later date.
That is why this debate is taking place on an Adjournment motion. Indeed, there is no other way to proceed if hon. Members are to express their views and if Ministers are to discharge their responsibilities—unless, of course, the House simply wants no decisions to be taken and the whole matter left in limbo for a further indefinite period. This is not to say that I am not acutely aware of the enormous political interest which this subject has aroused — how could I think otherwise? But I suggest that the only way in which that great interest can be properly combined with the requirements of planning legislation is for the House to debate the issue, for Ministers to listen intently, and for no substantive votes to take place—to avoid prejudicing the decisions.
What I can confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on Thursday last, is that after the decisions have been taken and announced the House will be given a further opportunity to debate and, if it wishes, to vote on the Government's airports policy. What I have in mind is that the Government will publish proposals on airports policy when the decisions are taken and announced, as the inspector urged us to do. These will cover a wider canvas than the narrower one of these particular planning applications.
I should like to make it perfectly clear that we approach this debate without having reached any conclusions as to what the final decisions might be. We will listen carefully to everything that hon. Members have to say.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Ridley: I am sorry; I shall not give way. I did say that I feared it would be unwise for me to engage in debate on these complicated matters.
Before I leave the Floor to hon. Members, I should like to make one further point. Almost every airport policy decision in the last 40 years has been controversial. Wherever there is an airport, or the potential for an airport in this crowded island, there are people who object to its development, understandably so, and their views are of the utmost importance. But the aviation industry plays a vital role in transporting people and supports a large number of jobs of all sorts. Any responsible Government must take account of the interests of all these people. Airlines and airports exist only to serve the needs of the travelling public. Air travel is no longer for the privileged few; it is our objective to bring it within the reach of more and more people. Every Government have had to face these dilemmas and attempt to reconcile these conflicting interests. It is not an easy task. I can only say that my hon. Friend and I will do our best to get the right answer.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is it not truly remarkable that we are debating on a motion


for the Adjournment of the House probably one of the most important decisions in relation to airports policy to be taken for the next 10 years? The Secretary of State tells us that this is because he is in rather a delicate position. During this week his delicate position seems to have taken on more and more of a close resemblance to the perils of Pauline. He seems to stagger from crisis to crisis, for most of which he is entirely responsible.
It is not true that similar debates on airport policy or on planning applications have been handled in this manner. One way the right hon. Gentleman could have dealt with any legal difficulty would have been to have given a decision and then allowed the House to have a full debate, because he would still have had the right under existing powers to call new expert evidence if he believed that something worthy and important has been brought to his attention. He could have taken account of all the views of the different sections of the House of Commons.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Lady admit that because it has been done in this way we shall get two bites at the cherry? If the Government had done as she has suggested — made a decision and then allowed a debate—we would have had only one bite at the cherry.

Mrs. Dunwoody: What has happened is much clearer. The Secretary of State started out trying to take a major decision by the back door. He brought in a Civil Aviation Bill, which was slung out by his colleagues. When that did not work, he decided that today we would have a debate on a Whip. When it became painfully clear that even his well-disciplined troops would not fall for that load of nonsense, he gradually reduced the Whip until suddenly, rather like the Cheshire cat, not only has the Whip disappeared but the payroll vote has disappeared as well. The payroll vote, which can normally be relied upon to troop through the Lobby, has been told that the Secretary of State is now in such disarray that the only thing he can possibly do to cover his own discomfiture is to suggest that we should have a vote on the Adjournment of the House.
We are all well aware that the Stansted report has far-reaching implications for the whole of our airports policy. We have had a week of leaks, a sort of, "Will they, won't they?" We are now told that we have had to proceed in this manner because there might be legal complications. The Secretary of State should have thought of that before he sought to push through the ceiling on Heathrow and take decisions that would pre-empt the decision that the inspector asked for in a carefully researched report. Today, we are being asked to decide on one area and to make policy in effect in a vacuum.
The report made clear that the inspector was anxious to give an overall picture of airports policy, but he could not. He made great efforts to run the widest possible survey before reaching a conclusion, but the nature of that system produced two main flaws. First, the inspector could not consider issues that were not brought to him for consideration. He actually mentioned the expansion of Gatwick, but there was no deep examination of the implications. The logic of the Government's desire for two equal and competing airlines is that they should operate from equal airports. Under those circumstances, Gatwick would have a second runway. That would mean destroying the village of Charlwood. The Government tell us

frequently that we should face up to taking hard decisions. Why are we not being asked to push ahead in that manner? Could it be that all the voters in Charlwood are Conservatives?
That leads to the second flaw. Airport policy is being considered but there has been no debate on airline policy. The computer models have included such assumptions but that is not the same as a discussion of the problems in depth.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The Government have not seen fit to proceed with a second runway at Gatwick because they have an agreement with West Sussex county council forbidding them to do so.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am well aware of that. The Secretary of State seems to think that he can take a salami approach to airports policy — putting a ceiling on Heathrow, ignoring the views of people living in that area, and simply pursuing his own interest in relation to one specific airport in the south-east.
There has been no discussion of the public expenditure implications or of the needs of regional airports, and precious little explanation of why the Minister is pushing ahead in this way. We all know why the debate is on the Adjournment. It is because the Government could not have faced the result if there had been a motion that could be amended and voted on in the proper way.
We need to consider what type of airline structure we want in this country. Should domestic companies such as British Midland be encouraged to limit themselves to being feeder services for B-Cal and British Airways or should they start their own international flights? Should there be one major flag carrier airline or two? Those questions lead not just to major decisions about airports but to major implications for licensing policy. It is crucial to decide which companies should use Stansted, if we want Stansted at all, and the type of service to be provided. Is tourism to take the lead from business travel or are we to have three major airports in the south-east warring for existing business, which will involve considerable interlining problems and serious implications for regional airports?
Since the last war, international business and international airline growth have been closely related. Do the Government expect that trend to change? If so, a more decentralised system of airports, extending regional airports and using them specifically as hub airlines not only makes sense but would produce positive dividends. The Government are using this inquiry to decide airline policy in general without proper consideration of all the airports. There is no consideration of Gatwick or the effect on Scottish airports and on major airports such as Manchester, which could develop, not just as a massive and useful international service, but act as a hub in relation to other regional airlines.
There was no comment from the Secretary of State about the investment implications. We should be considering the implications of Stansted for British airports finance. The British Airports Authority figure for capital needs this year is set at £150 million. In April, that will fall to £117 million. It will then be £139 million for 1986–87 and 1987–88. The external finance limit is also to fall in 1985–86. Those reductions are to take place at a time when Stansted is presumably to be built at a cost of more than £400 million. More than 75 per cent. of all investment


will be at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted. What will be the effect of that on Scottish airports? Prestwick is under threat and a report is imminent with major implications for Scotland. It seems inevitable that landing charges will have to be raised in other southern airports to cover the investment involved, although many airlines are complaining that landing charges are far too high already.
We should also consider the investment implications for British Rail. We have no clear idea of the cost of a British Rail link with Stansted, although those who worked on the northern airline scheme, especially in relation to the Natural Environment Research Council, claim that £166 million would be needed to build the link. At a time when investment has fallen from £522 million to £270 million in 1983–84 at constant prices, British Rail will have to find extra money not currently allowed for. If the Government are serious about this, they should tell us the effect on British Rail investment, on provincial services and on important factors such as section 20 grants. Commuter services in the provinces will be under enormous threat because the Government have not taken account of the investment that British Rail will have to find.
Thirdly, and most important, the Government and especially the Secretary of State have created an atmosphere of distrust. Why has there been such virulence in the north about the suggestion that Stansted should go ahead? It is because people in the north have no faith in the Government being prepared to consider the public expenditure implications on such an enormous injection of capital into the south-east or the loss of jobs and inability to attract new industries to the regions that the development of Manchester airport could have prevented. The Government have deliberately made it clear that in their view the regions take not first, second or third place but fourth place in relation to developments in the south-east.
On 17 January 1985 the Government stopped all regional aid. That moratorium will have a direct and deleterious effect on everything that is important to the regions. Next year aid will be cut by £300 million, with a further cut of £300 million in each succeeding year. That aid is concentrated in the north and in regions outside the south-east.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As one who rather admires Manchester airport and uses it a great deal, I am glad that British Airways is to extend its flights from that airport, but why are the landing charges there so much higher than those at other airports in this country?

Mrs. Dunwoody: As I have said, the BAA has no provision for the investment that Stansted will require. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the charges at Manchester now, the result of the Stansted plan will be far worse. In common with many other regional airports, Manchester is capable of developments that would allow it to take a great deal more traffic, both international and domestic. Economies of scale would then make it easier for airlines using that airport to benefit from lower costs than are now possible.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: The BAA boasts about the prices charged for franchise, enabling it to keep its charges artificially low because of the large number of people going through. If the regions had the same privilege of numbers, they could lower their charges.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is exactly the point. Those who oppose the development of regional airports, and especially Manchester, are using the argument not in relation to economies of scale but because they want even more investment in the south-east.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Is not the hon. Lady completely ignoring the fact that the pressure for developing airports round London arises from the fact that many passengers want to use airports round London? To develop Manchester airport in response to this demand in the south-east is rather like building an extra railway line into Manchester because there is over-demand for the railway into Euston.
Will the hon. Lady answer the point made by the trade union representive, Brian Crocker:
We are most disappointed that it now appears to be Opposition Party policy to oppose any further development of Stansted and Heathrow Airports. We feel this is both impractical and unworkable.

Mrs. Dunwoody: If the hon. Gentleman will give me two minutes to continue my speech, I shall come to those points later.
The kind of attack that the Government have mounted, particularly on regional aid, is one reason why there is such deep distrust in the north of the suggestion that the development at Stansted should go ahead. The distrust of those in the north of the Government's claim that investment in Stansted will in no way be deleterious makes it impossible for them to believe in the sincerity of the Secretary of State. To combine these two plans at the same time is a failure of leadership, which reveals the Government's desperate economic problems.

Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. Lady has spoken several times as though she speaks for the north of England. May I tell the hon. Lady that she does not speak for the north of England? Teesside chamber of commerce wrote to me this morning to make sure that I put my voice behind Stansted, which would be in the best interests of the north-east of England.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that those views are widely known, not only to the people in the north-east, who are very close to the excellent airport system that already exists round Newcastle, but to those who will be anxious to see a development of their own regional airport traffic and who will not take kindly to that kind of remark from a Member of Parliament who represents the area.
Two types of airline will have special worries about Stansted. Will Stansted be a repository for charter and domestic airlines? I ask this advisedly. The Secretary of State, when he brought in the Civil Aviation Bill, showed that the Government's interest was in selling landing slots. Allocation to the highest bidder means that British Airways will win, as will large foreign international airlines. The small airlines might find themselves pushed out into Stansted. It is possible that they will be unable to compete with the BA domestic feeder services or the international flights from Heathrow. Equally, the charter flights—and we believe that there is a good case for the development of tourist traffic in the north of England—might find that, with the availability of Stansted, British Caledonian will fight to have them thrown out of Gatwick. This will allow British Caledonian to expand and deal with some of the problems that it already has because of the restrictions to which previous Governments have agreed.


It is, therefore, in line with the Government's abortive competition policy. Why is it that the Government have not made clear to the House their intentions for these two particular types of airlines?

Mr. Cecil Franks: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I was asked to keep my speech short. It has not been easy to do so.

Mr. Franks: Will the hon. Lady take the point that many Conservative Members, including Conservative Members representing the north-west, would be prepared to take common cause with her if, instead of trying to make points against the Government, she kept her argument to the issues involved?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Let the hon. Gentleman understand that the Secretary of State has responsibility for creating an airlines and airports policy. He has signally failed to do so. He has taken it to the extent of introducing a major planning report on a motion to adjourn the House because he does not want to have the matter considered in any great detail.
It is important also to understand that the implications of Stansted involve real problems for the people living round Heathrow airport. No contribution has been made by any Conservative Member about the effect about pushing up the number of aircraft movements at Heathrow. I believe that we should be asking why, if there is to be any expansion at Stansted, the Government are insisting on such a large expansion all at once. It is obvious that in economic terms it would be possible to build a £5 million passenger terminal without any difficulty. It would be economic and would greatly reduce the guesswork that has so far been done to justify the expansion.
For example, the Stansted plan involves building a taxiway but widening it from the standard 23 m to 45 m along 2,700 m of the 3,900 m length. In other words, Stansted would gain the potential for expansion into a two-runway airport. While that is not likely in the near future, it makes it plain that the atmosphere of distrust that has greeted the plan can be justified by these facts on which the decisions are being taken. It is possible that Stansted could be expanded rapidly without a great deal of difficulty.
The Labour party does not welcome the idea that there should be a fifth terminal at Heathrow. We believe that that would take 15 years to build. It is clear that it will take at least six to eight years to move the Perry Oaks sludge works and that would therefore not solve the existing problem at Heathrow.
Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world and the residents in the area already know that to their cost. Because of the history of airport plans by various Governments and the vagueness of the forecasting—and there is considerable doubt about the processes that were used for forecasting in the report since this is not an accurate science—the residents will not feel particularly safe if the sludge works are moved but terminal 5 is not given the go-ahead. They will rightly fear that there will be yet another change at some point in the future. They will want a much clearer statement from the Secretary of State that he is aware of the environmental danger to the people living round Heathrow airport.
Once again the Heathrow expansion is beset by all the same problems that we have seen in relation to the Secretary of State's airport plan. Is the expansion to ensure that domestic airlines can stay at Heathrow or is it to let BA take over the domestic airline market as well? It is claimed in the report that only another 51,000 people will be seriously affected by terminal 5. That brings the 1995 total to 274,000 people while the Civil Aviation Authority has already said that 943,000 people were affected in 1980. The damage that is being done to save Heathrow from a problem that it will have to solve before terminal five could be built is considerable.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the hon. Lady clarify her remarks for the benefit of people who work at the airport—or who might wish to do so—and who are involved in civil air transport there? Is her party not committed to the fifth terminal at Heathrow for environmental and other reasons? If that is the case, she is diametrically opposed to one of the important recommendations of Mr. Eyre, QC.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is not Labour party policy to support the building of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. We believe that people who live round that airport have rights. I am well aware that people who work in airports have the right to have their jobs protected. Expansion at Heathrow would create extra jobs. Similar expansion at Manchester would create an equal number of jobs and the opportunity for many businesses to come into the areas close to the airport. It would also allow Manchester to act as a hub airport for many other regions. I should like to know whether Conservatives are prepared to take into account the effect of job creation when considering whether we should go ahead with expanding Manchester airport.
Working in a vacuum is always bad. The Government should make all their airports plans clear in the light of an overall air industry strategy. In turning their face on forecasting methods they are incapable of providing accurate statistical information. We should understand that many of the assumptions are about as accurate as trying to manoeuvre a poker hand.
It is essential to have a proper plan from the Secretary of State that will take account not only of the effects on regional airports but of the effects on Scottish airports, Heathrow and individual airlines.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has done nothing but harp upon Manchester airport. Clearly she has not read the Eyre report. If she had she would have noticed that specific reference is made to Manchester. Mr. Eyre says that the idea that Manchester airport is being discriminated against has reached the stage of being a phobia. He therefore investigated with particular care and came to the conclusion that there is no evidence for that contention. Has the hon. Lady any further evidence than that which Mr. Eyre considered to justify her statements today?

Mrs. Dunwoody: There is no clear evidence that the inspector was right in saying that the assumption on which the northern consortium had built its plans were incorrect. If the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) believes that we are talking with any certainty about numbers I refer him to the section of the report on forecasts. The inspector says that by 1995 demand in the London airports could be


61 million passengers per annum, or even 89·3 million. The inspector looked carefully at the implications but he had to admit that when forecasting the size of aircraft, the noise, the number of passengers generated and where they would come from, there was considerable room for different interpretations. We do understand, however, that there is no room for doubt about what the investment will do if it all goes into the south-east of England and it is very plain that the effects of such massive investment will be very considerable on other regions.
This afternoon the Secretary of State has got himself into considerable political difficulty. He has not been prepared to come forward with a clear explanation of how he views the future of airport policy. He has not even been prepared to consider that, within a short time, another inspector's report about Prestwick and the Scottish airports will be published. He has endeavoured to stymie his colleagues, who do not wish to see any development at Stansted but who are not prepared to concern themselves about the implications for Heathrow, the regions or those airports that are important outside the London area.
The Government have gone out of their way to take decisions behind closed doors which have major implications for the future. Tonight's vote will show the heavy price that has to be paid for their dislike and fear of open government. If Government Members are really serious they will not support a Secretary of State who wishes to close all the options, with little concern for the airlines or the airports policy.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: Over the years I have often been in disagreement with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Today is no exception. I particularly disagree with her on two matters.
The hon. Lady criticised the Government for having the debate today. It is strange that the Opposition should criticise the Government for having a debate in advance of a decision. Oppositions almost always say that there is no point in having a debate after a decision has been made because the Government do not listen but merely use their majority to push their decision through the House. Here we are, on a rare and welcome occasion, being given the opportunity to tell the Secretary of State exactly what we think and to give our views to him so that he can take them into account — I know that he will — yet the hon. Lady objects. That is strange.
The hon. Lady said that she had not heard much about the case in connection with Heathrow. Perhaps she has not heard it, but that does not mean that the case has not been made. If she missed it, she can hear it again now because I propose to talk about it. Although the case has been made, it is not as widely known as it should be.
Heathrow is in a ridiculous place. Nobody in his senses designing a capital city from scratch in a country governed by predominantly westerly airstreams would place the major airport 15 miles due west of the city centre. It means that every plane landing or taking off flies over the city centre. Any hon. Member who has had the pleasure of taking a cup of tea on the Terrace in the summer will be well accustomed to the sight of a stream of aeroplanes turning on to the flight path, apparently immediately over St. Thomas's hospital. They then travel the 15 miles to Heathrow, causing trouble and disturbance.
Thousands and thousands of aeroplanes fly over the middle of London, but — touch wood — no serious

accident has occurred. That speaks highly for the pilots, engineers and flight controllers. I can remember only one accident, about 12 years ago when an aircraft fell out of the sky on to my constituency after taking off from Heathrow. Everyone on the plane was killed but by the mercy of Heaven no one on the ground was killed. The aircraft fell exactly 220 yards from Staines high street. We should be thankful that we have had no major accident. Long may that continue.
However, Heathrow is where it is. It has been developed out of all recognition over the past 40 years and it is still being developed. Terminal 4 is still under construction and is expected to come into operation later this year. That will increase Heathrow's present capacity of 29 million passengers a year by another 8 million. Yet Mr. Graham Eyre, in the report, recommends further development at Heathrow to cater for another 15 million people. He admits that it will take a long time for any such development and do nothing to solve the problem of providing enough capacity in the next few years.
It is important that the case against further development at Heathrow should be made today because Mr. Eyre says that if the fifth terminal is to come into operation in 1997 or later the go-ahead must be given now because of the enormously long lead time.
I am not sure whether the House is fully aware of the great weight of opinion around Heathrow against any further development. Surrey county council — my constituency is in Surrey — led a consortium of local authorities to put the case to Mr. Graham Eyre against any further development at Heathrow. The consortium consisted of the county councils of Surrey, Buckinghamshire and Hampshire, the London boroughs of Hounslow, Kingston-upon-Thames and Richmond and the borough and district councils of Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead, Runnymede, South Bucks, Surrey Heath, and Spelthorne which I have the honour to represent. This involves a large number of people. There are about 1 million people in Surrey, about 600,000 in Buckinghamshire and 1·5 million in Hampshire. Therefore, we are referring to the elected representatives of more than 3 million people. That leaves out of account the London boroughs to which I have referred.
At a meeting that I attended last week to discuss this debate, we were told by the vice-chairman of the planning committee of Berkshire county council that the Berkshire county council is also totally against the development of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Unfortunately, I do not know how many people live in Berkshire, but undoubtedly many people live in that county. I should also mention, though I hardly dare, that the chairman of the planning committee of the Greater London council was at that meeting and said that his council is totally opposed to any further development at Heathrow.

Mr. Michael Grylls: As the constituency of my right hon. Friend abuts mine, would he comment on that part of the report which refers to the noise impact and the urban growth impact of a fifth terminal at Heathrow on his area and also on my part of Surrey? No doubt my right hon. Friend's constituents, like many of mine, are concerned about the increase in noise, if there were to be such an increase, and the pressure upon urban development.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his invitation. I shall not rehearse all the arguments that were


presented by the consortium to Mr. Eyre because anybody who wishes to find out what they are can read them. However, I shall refer to noise and to the effect upon the roads. I do not propose to dwell upon the subject of noise, for it is only two months since the Second Reading debate on the Civil Aviation Bill and I made the case on noise as well as I could then. Therefore, it would not be profitable to repeat it now. However, in chapter 42, paragraph 10.1, Mr. Eyre states:
Air noise is a modern curse from which the unfortunate inhabitants of the Heathrow area have been required to suffer over a long period. There will be substantial improvements in the noise climate in the next few years"—
I should like to argue that point with Mr. Eyre—
but conditions will still be worse than at any other location in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir Humphrey Atkins: No; I am in the middle of this point and I shall not give way.
It is alleged that as time passes—this is part of the reason why Mr. Eyre believes that there may be an improvement — there will be less noise because there will be fewer aeroplanes. I have yet to meet anybody who seriously believes that 23 million extra people can be carried in and out of Heathrow each year without an increase in the number of aircraft. There is talk of super jumbos carrying 600 or 700 passengers to replace the present generation of jumbos. Indeed, terminal 4, which has not yet been completed, is designed to accommodate aeroplanes of that kind. It is worthy of note, however, that not only are no such aeroplanes flying but that, so I am advised, no such aeroplanes are even in production.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I represent constituents who have suffered from serious and severe noise pollution for many years. The result has been that many of them have suffered physical and nervous breakdowns; and it is well known that those who live in Ealing and in the surrounding areas that have already been mentioned by my right hon. Friend cannot hold conversations inside their flats or houses during the winter, let alone during the summer. Therefore, noise, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, is a major factor.

Sir Humphrey Atkins: I accept everything that my hon. Friend has said. However, I shall turn from the subject of noise, because we have already heard a good deal about it, to roads — another important part of the case made by the consortium. The difficulties surrounding getting into and out of London to the west are well known. When the construction of terminal 4 was being considered about seven years ago, Mr. Justice Glidewell, who wrote the report, said:
Heathrow is London's largest generator of road traffic and the A4/M4 corridor is the Airport's most important route into and out of central London — it has been overloaded for many years.
Mr. Justice Glidewell continued:
Unrestrained road traffic growth in the past has progressively increased this overloading to such a degree that
today it has
reached levels that must be regarded as intolerable.

Mr. Robert Adley: Would my right hon. Friend allow me to comment upon this part of his argument?

Sir Humphrey Atkins: No, otherwise I shall be on my feet all afternoon, and nobody wants that.
In his most recent report Mr. Graham Eyre was more dismissive. He said:
conditions on the highway network in the Heathrow area and in particular along the M4/A4 corridor are unacceptable.

In chapter 38, paragraph 11.9, he said that a working party ought to be set up to investigate what could be done about this difficulty. That seems to be quite a good idea until one realises that it has already been done. The Department of Transport's evidence to Mr. Eyre's inquiry was as follows:
The overall picture towards the end of this century will therefore be one of a highway network under stress with drivers operating under considerable strain (and) … conditions are likely to get worse on the M4 itself.
The Department went on to say:
The Department have no proposals for any further roads in the area and indeed see no scope in providing any additional capacity in the A4/M4 corridor into Central London.
Therefore, one is bound to agree with the statement made last week by the transport committee's chairman of Surrey county council:
yet the A4/M4 corridor cannot cope with only three terminals at Heathrow. With a Fourth and Fifth terminal and over 1 million passengers a week, traffic congestion would be intolerable. Not only would the M4 come to a standstill; the M25 would be heavily over-loaded as well.

Mr. Adley: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he believes the Government have studied the plans by British Rail for tunnels both for its Western region main line at Iver and for its Southern region line at Feltham? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if one looks constructively at this matter and tries to reduce the road congestion to which my right hon. Friend properly referred, major investment by the state in the rail infrastructure to ease the congestion at Heathrow must be a vital part of these considerations?

Sir Humphrey Atkins: Indeed, it would have to be. If this development went ahead, any rail link would need to take a very much higher proportion of passengers than the current underground link because the underground link represents only about 10 per cent. of passenger traffic and is virtually insignificant.
Over a number of years, the Government have consistently stated publicly that terminal 5 will not be built. Sir John Nott, as Secretary of State for Trade, said:
these considerations have led us to the view that a fifth terminal should not be provided." — [Official Report, 17 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 36.]
In another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade, Lord Trefgarne, said:
We have come to the conclusion that a fifth terminal at Heathrow … would take perhaps 11 to 13 years to build … and would not provide a long term solution." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 14 February 1980; Vol. 405, c. 327.]
Sir John Nott also said:
I have made clear the Government's position. We do not favour a fifth terminal".—[Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 694.]
My right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in 1980 — it may come as a surprise to hon. Members to know that he was then only a lowly Parliamentary Under-Secretary:
The Government's view remains as set out in the statement made on 17 December 1979 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that a fifth terminal should not be provided."—[Official Report, 3 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 411.]


That was confirmed by my right hon. Friend in a letter of 13 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), and the letter was subsequently issued by the Department as a press release.
The present Leader of the House, who was Secretary of State for Trade in 1981, reaffirmed in a written answer on 13 May 1981, at column 273, the Government's view that a fifth terminal should not be provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade, said:
The Government have stated their view on a number of occasions that a fifth terminal at Heathrow should not be provided."—[Official Report, 23 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 193.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), the then Leader of the House, said:
the Government have on a number of occasions said that a fifth terminal at Heathrow should not be provided. That remains our policy "—[Official Report, 23 July 1981; Vol. 9, c. 544.]
Finally, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote a letter on 19 October 1981 to my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). Of course, I have not seen that letter, but it was quoted in the House by Mr. Iain Sproat, who was then the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade. He said that the Prime Minister had written:
The Government's airports policy was announced by John Nott in the House of Commons on 17 December 1979 and has been repeated since.
Small wonder then that hundreds of thousands of people believed in and took comfort from those assurances. Even less wonder that those of us who represent them felt able to say to anyone who expressed anxiety to us, "Do not worry. The fifth terminal will not be built. We have the Government's assurance on that." I have been saying that all those years and I said it during the last general election campaign. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends also did so.
Therefore, it will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to discover that if my assurances prove to have been false, there will be no way that he can count on my support — only my opposition. However, I do not believe that it will come to that. The Secretary of State is an honourable man; we all know that. He said as recently as 21 November in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) — admittedly on aircraft movements rather than the fifth terminal:
I agree with my hon. Friend that when a Government give a firm and unequivocal pledge of that sort it behoves them to seek to implement it".—[Official Report, 21 November 1984, Vol. 68, c. 301.]
Therefore, I hope that I can rely on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do exactly that.
It is only proper that any hon. Member who contributes to the debate should spell out, as far as possible, the line that the Government ought to pursue. I shall try to do that briefly. All our discussions and Mr. Graham Eyre's report are based on the assumption that, because an increasing number of people want to land in aeroplanes as near to the centre of London as they can, it is our business to make arrangements for them to do so. I suppose that it could be said to be the law of supply and demand, which, in general, is a very good thing. However, a balance has to be struck between the operation of that law and the wellbeing of the people it affects. There is nothing new in that; it is the basis of all our planning law.
For example, if a large number of people said that they worked in the centre of London and wanted to live in the city centre, so they wanted permission to build houses in Hyde park, any planning authority would immediately say that such a proposal would be so damaging to the environment of those living nearby that it could not be approved. I believe that the Government should say that to airline passengers: "So many more of you coming into Heathrow would so damage the quality of life of those living near the airport that you should land somewhere else."
The question of a fifth terminal at Heathrow is not an immediate problem, unlike the future of Stansted or developments at Manchester. No extra passengers would be able to use the fifth terminal until almost the next century. However, the Government would be wrong to give the go-ahead to a new terminal in defiance of everything that has been said over all these years.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am very glad to be able to participate in so crucially important a debate, which may even prove to be an historic one.
I have two interests to declare. The first is that Manchester international airport, a most successful public enterprise in which, like all Mancunians, I take a legitimate pride, is in my constituency. It employs more people than any other enterprise there, and I am naturally anxious that it should go on expanding to provide more jobs in an area of unacceptably high unemployment.
My other interest in the debate is that I chair the all-party group of hon. and right hon. Members that liaises with the North of England Regional Consortium — NOERC. It was in that capacity that I sponsored early-day motion 146 on "Stansted and the Regions" which, with 233 signatories from all parties, has won more and wider parliamentary backing than any other motion awaiting debate in this House.
As the House will appreciate, I receive no financial reward from NOERC which, as most right hon. and hon. Members will know, speaks for 19 major local authorities in the north and represents millions of people, of all political persuasions and of none, in its opposition to the ill-conceived and unnecessary plan to develop Stansted as London's third airport.
The unemployment rate in the north is 17·1 per cent. In the south-east it is 9·2 per cent. The area immediately around Stansted has hardly any unemployment at all. The northern regions, with 27 per cent. of Britain's population, have 33 per cent. of its unemployment. The south-east, with 31 per cent. of the population, has 24 per cent. of the unemployment. Unemployment is a tragedy anywhere, but it hits much harder in the north, where losing a job means spending at least two and a half times longer on the dole before getting another chance to earn one's living.
In many parts of the north today we have male unemployment rates in excess of 50 per cent. In the city of Manchester there are now many localities where over two thirds of the under-25s are out of work. That is a shocking statistic from a city of which it was said, by one of the best economic historians to have written in the English language, that whoever spoke of industrialisation spoke of Manchester. It is a city today whose name has become synonymous with deindustrialisation. Moreover, even the figure of 66 per cent. unemployment among our young people in Manchester would be much higher but for


The masking effect of the youth training scheme on youth unemployment. In this International Year of Youth, the prospect for most of our youngsters is from school to scrapheap.
Even to suggest a £1 billion-plus investment at Stansted not merely derides but mocks the ever-lengthening dole queues of the north. It excites not just total opposition but outright anger among my constituents. We cannot spend the same money twice, and it would be a crime against the north to plan expenditure on that scale in the south-east. Yet it would seem that the inquiry inspector's view of the relationship of Stansted to the north, as to where such vast investment should go, is that while it does not want it, we cannot have it. That is not just voodoo economics, but logic worthy of Fred Karno.
Until only a short time ago it was the Government's intention to take their decision on Stansted without reference to this House. That was their stance in one parliamentary answer after another, and they have made an important concession. In response to pressure they agreed to a parliamentary debate and I am both relieved and grateful that Ministers have now, if reluctantly, conceded Parliament's essential role in debating and deciding issues of this importance. The Government as yet have not declared a view on the inquiry inspector's recommendation on Stansted. By refusing to table an amendable motion for this debate, they have attempted to make it impossible for the House to declare a definitive view. What the 233 signatories of my motion wanted today was an opportunity to vote, not against the Government, but against the inspector's recommendation to develop Stansted to a capacity of 15 million passengers per annum. The only way in which we can now demonstrate our concern, in all parts of the House, is to divide the House tonight and to make it clear that we are doing so as the only means of signalling our opposition to the huge development of Stansted now proposed. This may well be the last parliamentary opportunity to debate Stansted before the Government take their decision, and I hope that enough right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, by their votes tonight, will leave the Government and the country in no doubt what that decision must be.

Mr. Toby Jessel: The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is against spending a lot of money on developing Stansted, with the object of resources going to the north-west or the north instead. Will he make it equally clear, with equal emphasis, that he supports the view of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that a fifth terminal should not be built at Heathrow, for exactly the same reason?

Mr. Morris: I shall be making reference to Heathrow as I proceed. Meanwhile I much admire the hon. Gentleman for the tenacity with which he fights his constituency case, just as I admire the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) for the admirable way in which he has campaigned for his constituency.
To proceed, I trust that the Secretary of State will himself agree that this House has much to thank the North of England Regional Consortium for. It is the only body prepared to look in depth at the regional airport option as an alternative to developing Stansted. The consortium has exposed the implications, both for public expenditure and tourism, of the Britsh Airports Authority's plans. It has

drawn national attention to the widening chasm, in social and economic terms alike, between the south-east and other regions. Even more important, NOERC has shown how a positive policy for encouraging the development and growth of regional airports can assist in regenerating ailing regional economies.
Those with the stamina to have read the inspector's report must have been reminded, by its lengh and content, of some of the old transportation studies undertaken in the conurbations in the 1960s. Technicians were sent away with a brief to produce a shopping list of highway, rail and pedestrian schemes to meet the transportation needs of their areas for the indefinite future. They normally came up with a huge list of schemes. Costs were never questioned until the time came to look at how they could be implemented. Nor were future trends considered which ultimately rendered the proposed strategy largely unnecessary. The studies were models of academic achievement but had little or no relevance to the practical world. As a leader in The Times, of 11 December 1984, said perceptively of the inquiry inspector's findings:
It would be a cruelly consistent end to a long story of muddle if Stansted were developed as a stop-gap for a gap which never happened.
The North of England Regional Consortium is an unprecedented coming together of major local authorities as far north as Northumberland and as far south as Derbyshire. It commands political support from all parties throughout the north of England. It is supported by authorities and agencies in Scotland, including the Scottish Tourist Board, by authorities in Wales and the midlands, by chambers of commerce up and down the country and by trade unions at both a regional and national level. Over 500 individual firms either made representations to the inquiry inspector or to the Government and Members of Parliament in support of the consortium's case. I cannot think of any other single body which has ever attracted such widespread and positive support in a matter affecting airports.
There is no need in purely air transport terms for a further major development in the south-east of England to meet that region's air transport needs until the mid-1990s at the earliest.
The consortium has also shown that a very high number of regional air travellers are now forced to use airports in the south-east and that, if some of them could be reallocated to services from our regional airports, then expansion could proceed in the regions rather than the south-east. This would bring substantial economic and employment benefits to the regions and, as I have made clear, such benefits are urgently needed to reduce the widening disparities in both employment opportunities and social and economic conditions as between the south-east and the rest of the country.
Of all the alternatives to Stansted canvassed at the public inquiry none has been subject to more misinterpretation than that put forward by the consortium.
Let me give a few examples. The BAA has stated that we are against any increase in the capacity of the London system for all time. Yet we did not oppose the development of Gatwick terminal 2 nor Heathrow terminal 4. We understand and made it pikestaff plain at the inquiry that, beyond the time framework fixed for considering the case for a third London airport—the mid-1990s—there may well be growth in airport need which would justify further expansion of airport facilities in the south-east. But


we also made it clear that the distorting effects of massively developing Stansted now, as opposed to some essential development in London later, could not be justified. The extent of any development will depend upon how long regional passengers have to continue using London's airports.
The BAA also said—it is now echoed by the CAA—that the consortium's alternative to Stansted would help foreign airports. That is a scare. It is a facile attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the uninformed. What it seeks to ensure is that passengers who originate in the regions, or who have destinations in the regions and are forced now to use London, will have to go on using London.
But why cannot our regional airports be allowed to accommodate regional passengers? Schiphol and Frankfurt are profiting already from the over-centralised air transport system in this country. What is more, failure to expand regional air services will benefit foreign airports even more.
As the House knows, the BAA and Government Departments rely on CAA surveys which classify passengers on the basis of where their journeys began on the day of the survey. The cumulative effect is that regional passengers who travel to London, or touring passengers who are forced to use London's airports despite the fact that they spend little or no time there, are actually counted as south-east passengers. In fact, they are passengers from Birmingham, Cardiff, the east midlands, Humberside, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and from everywhere else in Britain. To regard them as south-east passengers adds insult to the inconvenience they suffer.

Mr. Adley: rose—

Mr. Morris: I am anxious to proceed as quickly as possible, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to make a brief point.

Mr. Adley: I am sure that many people will agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying, and I know from my business experience that it is true. Does he agree that the BAA is really disqualified from giving a rational opinion? It does not own any airports between Scotland and south-east England. The BAA simply wants to boost its area of responsibility, and it cannot be said to be a dispassionate witness.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman well reflects the strength of feeling that exists on both sides of the House about the orgy of propaganda to which we have been subjected over the years by the BAA.
As I was saying, to regard people from other parts of the country as south-east passengers adds insult to the inconvenience that they suffer. Yet an essential part of the case for Stansted is built on the delusion that they are from the south-east.
NOERC has recently examined data from a highly impartial source which shows that, if the places of residence for United Kingdom residents and the places where foreign visitors spend the greatest number of nights is taken into account, the proportion of airport passengers using London's airports who originate from the south-east — or are tourists going to the south-east — is reduced from 80 per cent., which is the figure BAA constantly uses, to only 71 per cent. This reduction means that the

regional share has been underestimated by nearly 50 per cent. This is but one of the fundamental errors which flaws the inquiry inspector's strategy.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Morris: I should like to give way but, in deference to the Chair, I feel that I should proceed.
The inspector's forecasts for the 1990s could have to be reduced by up to 6 million passengers due to the single discrepancy to which I have referred. In any event, we, among others, see his forecasts as far too high because of the unduly optimistic economic assumptions he makes. In this respect, they resemble, both in their optimism and probable inaccuracy, every previous forecast of demand which has been made.
The Secretary of State is welcome to examine our research, an opportunity which I earnestly urge him to take before he determines the inspector's report. To calm his nerves, perhaps I should disclose that the impartial source from which it derives is his own Department of Transport.
Other myths have been put about by the BAA. Sir Norman Payne's description of Stansted as an
oasis of opportunity in a desert of decline
is now notorious. In response, I will simply say that, compared with the inner city areas of Manchester, Liverpool and our other great cities in the north, with their male unemployment rates in many localities of over 50 per cent., the Herts-Essex area is nirvana.

Mr. Roger Gale: rose—

Mr. Morris: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I must get on.
The BAA's far-fetched story that the NOERC solution represents a real threat to Britain's earning potential may be clever propaganda, but portrays no understanding of current realities. It is a remarkable fact that there are now more direct regional services to Amsterdam than there are regional services to London. All we seek to do is ensure that more passengers use their local airports instead of foreign airports and, by so doing, generate a benefit for the nation as a whole.

Mr. Gale: Allegations have been made against the BAA, an organisation for which I hold no brief whatever. I understand that the BAA wishes, as I do, to see the regional airports developed, and I appreciate the concern which the right hon. Gentleman and others express. However, will the right hon. Gentleman say — I understand that he received this information in answer to a parliamentary question — how many available routes there are already to Manchester that have not been taken up?

Mr. Morris: I do not intend to be drawn into an argument about the BAA. I have indicated my view and will proceed with my argument, which I hope will help to inform the hon. Gentleman in full detail of the northern case.
There would be no net loss to the nation if some of the millions of inward tourists — and 62 per cent. of all nights spent in the UK by overseas visitors are spent outside London — arrived in Scotland, Wales, Manchester, Birmingham or other centres, instead of 94 per cent. of them having to pass through the south-east and creating unnecessary congestion at and around London's airports.
Mr. Graham Eyre's dismissive attitude to those whose opinions differ from his own clearly stems from the fact


that the questions he asked of himself were fundamentally different from those posed by others, notably by the North of England Regional Consortium. He has sought to forecast need and recommends the provision of capacity so far into the future that he is accused of taking evidence from Gypsy Rose Lee. Yet I suspect that Gypsy Rose herself would have been speechless at his powers of prophecy, as she could have told him that there is no practical means of forecasting demand beyond the mid-1990s. To follow the inspector's line would have meant the implementation of what he calls "four-runway" monsters at Maplin, Cublington or, indeed, Stansted, over 10 years ago.
Of course, it is not for a planning inquiry to decide major issues of airports policy. That is ultimately a task for this House, and we must introduce some practical realism into the debate about Stansted in our deliberations today. It would plainly be ridiculous, at this juncture, to commit expenditure well into the 21st century.
Enormous sums of money are involved and it is clearly only prudent to make the best use of scarce existing resources by planning within a reasonable timescale. It is also plainly right that we must first achieve the aims of the 1978 White Paper on airports policy — a policy which successive Governments have strongly endorsed—and in particular the role it envisaged for our regional airports.
Since so many of my constituents work at Manchester international airport, perhaps I may be allowed to make a few comments about Manchester in the hope that Members with an interest in other regional airports will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speak of the effect of this debate on their constituencies.
Manchester international serves a catchment area of 20 million people, about 40 per cent. of the UK's population. As Britain's third airport, it was designated a category "A" international gateway in 1978. As the House well knows, it has maintained and built upon this status and, in 1984, was the UK's fastest growing airport. We had an increase in the number of passengers to more than 6 million.
The airport has a crucial employment role, not just in south Manchester, but for the north-west as a whole. It provides direct employment for 5,500 people, including the employees of airlines and support services. A further 15,000 people are employed indirectly throughout the region.
Manchester's continued success is crucial to the region's future, in the same way as growth at Newcastle, Leeds-Bradford, Birmingham, Cardiff, the East Midlands and other regional airports is important to the future prosperity of their regions. All of those airports have experienced steady growth in the deregulated inclusive tour and charter sectors. The position is not, however, so rosy in the scheduled sector. In Manchester's case, with the exception of the Qantas service to Australia, and the planned services to New York and Hong Kong, there are as yet no intercontinental scheduled services. This must be bad for industry and commerce in the north-west. The Civil Aviation Authority's own 1983 survey of passenger traffic provides evidence that direct services could be viably operated from Manchester to many other intercontinental destinations including Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Toronto, Johannesburg, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and Singapore. Such services would bring

substantial benefits to northern consumers and business men by improving trade links and generating much needed jobs.
Yet foreign airlines have been stopped from opening up intercontinental routes into Manchester. I know that some of my parliamentary colleagues will want to discuss this very disturbing result of the current licensing system, and I shall not go further on that point except to say that it is totally scandalous that Singapore Airlines has been refused permission to fly into Manchester.
Stansted poses a massive threat to the further development of all our regional airports. For it to operate viably, as Mr. Graham Eyre himself acknowledged, there would have to be licensing policies that effectively forced airlines to fly there. This is, of course, a policy that is likely to meet with considerable resistance from the airlines. Stansted is currently marketed as a low-cost airport with exceptionally low landing fees in order to attract business. It is operating at a loss and, in effect, is subsidised by the other British Airports Authority's airports at Heathrow and Gatwick. The regional airports, such as Manchester, which have to be individually profitable, cannot compete on equal terms. Even now they are the victims of totally unfair competition. I point out to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), in particular, that this explains much of the animus shown by right hon. and hon. Members representing the regions when they discuss the outpourings of the British Airports Authority.
The regional airports must be developed to satisfy regionally generated demand for air services. This cannot possibly be achieved if a heavily subsidised Stansted airport is allowed massively to expand. By positively encouraging the regional airports, we can benefit not only the regions outside the south-east; capacity would also be released at both Heathrow and Gatwick. The opportunity is now clearly available to us to make better use of the nation's resources. It is an opportunity that must not be missed.
I urge every hon. Member who shares my view to join me in the Division Lobby tonight.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. More than 50 hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye in this debate. I am afraid that some of them will be disappointed unless speeches are briefer.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I shall do my best to heed that warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you will understand that my constituency is at the centre of these matters because Stansted airport is wholly within its boundaries.
I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), not only for the support he has given generally to a cause in which he and I believe, but for the measured and moderate way in which he has put his case. It would be churlish if I did not acknowledge the debt we owe to Mr. Graham Eyre for the monumental work he has undertaken. Although we shall dive into his studies and find bits that we like and bits we do not like, we cannot detract from the application he has shown. It is a remarkable achievement.
I realise that this debate could be a dreary recital of well-stated positions, which does not inform Ministers or


help them in their efforts to listen to the views of hon. Members and make up their minds, or help those hon. Members who are still trying to discover the best truth to emerge from all this. Naturally, my hon. Friends will understand that I must defend my constituency position, but I hope that I shall make as constructive a speech as I can.
I acknowledge immediately that there is more than one opinion in my constituency. Some people would accept development of Stansted in varying degrees, but it could be said that there is almost overwhelming agreement in my constituency about limited expansion at Stansted, provided a reasonable limit can be set. I hope that the House will not be misled by the document that has been circulated — not to me but to others — by the British Airports Authority giving the results of a MORI poll, showing that the proportion in favour of some expansion is nearly 3:1. The authority had to extend its net some 30 miles from my constituency to obtain such a result. I acknowledge, however, that there is support for expansion at Stansted, even from some of the most vociferous opponents of the full-scale development that they fear threatens them.
I hope that I do not sound too pompous by offering a quotation from Edmund Burke which I hope will animate our discussions. In 1775 he said:
Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interestss; which interest each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.
In the end, the House must operate in that spirit, and I certainly do not intend to speak now or influence colleagues later in a manner that departs unduly from that spirit.
The fairness argument comes up time and again. There is a deep sense of injustice in my constituency about the singular tale of Stansted over the years. My constituents are concerned that this matter has come up repeatedly. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) — I am sure that he speaks for exactly the same basic causes as I do when he talks of his constituents' feelings and those of others—that we are all in the same boat because our constituents rely on the various promises that have been given over the years. To say that some promises are more recent than others does not destroy the validity of the point that people have relied on Governments in the past and have not been able to place much trust in them as a result of what has happened. If we cannot allow the past to bind the future, the only advice I can give to the Government is that the slate must be wiped clean. The Government must make their decisions in the light of the position as they see it now and on the best information available.
Mr. Eyre said that he felt that the proposition put before him regarding Stansted was very different from the other propositions. I suggest that the proposition at the heart of this matter is whether north-west Essex is a suitable place for a major airport, with the number of passengers rising to 25 million per annum. It is immaterial whether it has one, two, three or four runways. The basic question is whether it is the right place.
I shall deal with the fundamentalist argument. There seems to be a widely received truth that air transportation is good, and we cannot have too much of it. I want to enter

a cautionary word so that we do not lose all sense of proportion and give to Government now and in the future a licence to unroll a carpet of concrete wherever the insatiable appetite for air transport takes them. Colin Buchanan, in his pamphlet published this week, gives us some sound advice—"keep a sense of proportion". I do not want to tread too far down that path. I recognise that people — my constituents among them — will want to travel, and I do not believe that they should be unduly denied the opportunity. We should value the important contribution that tourism can make. I am not one of those who will argue that the British civil air transport industry must be hampered in order to benefit foreign aviation industries. I accept those aims, but not at any price. I recognise that Mr. Eyre believed that the expansion should not occur at any price. It is a matter of judgment and balance as to what one thinks are the reasonable confines for expansion.
My hon. Friends will recognise that no speech of mine on this subject would be complete without a kindly reference to the "Big Brother" of the airport business—the British Airports Authority. The British Airports Authority is far less than its name implies but has far more influence than its territorial extent merits. That point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). In the development of airports policy, I cannot help feeling that there has been far too close a relationship between officials of Government Departments and the BAA. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Mr. Eyre analyses very sharply how the wheels have been allowed to grind to make Stansted, time and again, appear the only option. With the BAA constituted as it is, no truly national policy can emerge.
The BAA boasts—the boast was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)—that it has a great interest in the success of the regional airports. In making that boast, the BAA has all the credibility of the wolf inviting the third little pig to come to the fair. Throughout the whole business, it has shown a ruthless and sometimes unsavoury determination to get its own way.
I cite once again the MORI poll circulated by the BAA in a press release. It is headed:
Most Stansted Residents Support Airport Expansion".
Stansted Mountfitchet is a village with a population of 6,000 or 7,000. The poll was taken within a 30-mile radius of that village. That is typical of the deception practised by the BAA throughout the campaign. I hope that no hon. Member will be deceived by it.

Mr. Hayes: Has not the BAA gone so far as to buy 1,100 acres of land in the Stansted area at vastly inflated prices?

Mr. Haselhurst: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. That fact, too, has given rise to suspicion that the Government's decision will be prejudiced, even though we have been given assurances in the past that such factors will not affect the issue.
I believe that the inspector was less than fair to the regional argument. I have a decent northern pedigree, not only as a born Yorkshireman but as someone who had the honour to represent a parliamentary seat in the Greater Manchester area a few years ago. I do not believe that people should be forced to use regional airports. Mr. Eyre effectively exploded that view. However, it is reasonable to satisfy the regional demand that naturally arises in the


regions. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe produced some good figures on that point, and I know from experience that too many people have to travel to the south-east to fly to their destination.
The population argument is compelling. We are invited to believe that 17 million people in the south-east will fuel the expansion of aviation for ever. However, there are 37 million people in the north as a whole. There must be a great tendency towards growth in the regions, and it should be satisfied there.
We must adopt a more positive stance on future tourism from other countries, and ensure that the benefits of tourism in terms of jobs are spread more evenly throughout the country. That, too, would help airports policy. Mr. Eyre said:
If tourism brings overall benefits and if its demands are to be met, then more effort will be needed to exploit the potential of other areas of the UK.
He also said that he had little doubt that more could be done in that respect. A well-directed tourist policy could considerably ease our problems in the south-east. The regional argument has been under-played so far. I hope that the Government will recognise that more can be done than paying lip service to our regional airports.
There is also the question of urbanisation. The inspector recognised that it is very much a question of judgment. It is hard to predict how many people will want to move into an area because of a degree of expansion at the airport. I take the commonsense point of view that if 25,000 jobs are to be created by the expansion of Stansted to a capacity of 15 million passengers per annum, and if there are only 2,300 unemployed people in the constituency of Saffron Walden, it is likely that there will be a great deal of migration.
Mr. Eyre seems to believe that the capacity could be increased to 15 million, or perhaps 25 million, with only small effects on the environment of the area, but that if capacity is increased to 25 million and one catastrophe will follow. I suspect that it would be a matter of degree, and that catastrophe would manifest itself much earlier than Mr. Eyre was prepared to conclude.
Mr. Eyre produced forecasts and timetables. The House has every ground for being wary of forecasts on which we are invited to make decisions. We should consider past efforts. For 1985, the Roskill commission said that we would need to be handling 84 million passengers per annum in the London area airports. The CAA forecast of 1973 was also for 84 million. The Maplin review suggested 58 million to 76 million. The 1978 White Paper on airports policy suggested 51 million to 64 million. In 1979 the advisory committee forecast 55 million to 61 million. The 1981 Gatwick inquiry forecast 55 million to 61 million. What is the reality? It is about 45 million during this year.
I remember the chairman of the BAA assuring us within the Palace of Westminster that unless his policies were adopted the London airports system would be saturated by 1987. We now know that the Stansted terminal on which he had set his heart will not be ready until 1991, and that the saturation point will have not been reached by then. It is interesting that there has been a slippage of years that almost matches the passage of time since the inquiry began. I believe that Mr. Eyre's figure of 89 million by the year 2000 should be treated with great reserve.
Forgetting, for a moment, the complex factors involved in any such projection, let us ask ourselves whether it is credible to imagine that numbers in London will double by the year 2000. That is what we are expected to believe. The inspector showed clear preference for the development of Heathrow. He said in chapter 39 that:
the application site forms part of an area which is more suitable for airport development than any other location in the south east and the whole of the United Kingdom.
He turns to Stansted because of the timetable. On the question of the availability of a terminal 5, there is evidence from the Thames water authority that the inspector's estimate of 1996 at the earliest could be improved upon and that it is by no means certain that the Perry Oaks sludge works would have to be physically replaced anywhere.
The idea is that Stansted will take up the shortfall. I do not believe that, in order to take up the shortfall and carry us through to the year 2000 and beyond, we need to give the BAA the green light to build a Texas-scale facility at Stansted. Stansted would be prepared to play its part as a regional airport and to ensure that the disaster of saturation, were it to threaten within that time, would not occur.
I am obliged to say things about Heathrow that will not find unanimous support amongst my colleagues. I cannot help that. To some extent, I fear that I cannot avoid a head-on collision with some of my colleagues. I understand the interests that they represent. I know that the complaints made by the people living near Heathrow are generically the same as those of the people living around Stansted. I accept that more people live around Heathrow. It is still a moot environmental point whether it is better to utilise an existing facility than to start a wholly new one.
Mr. Eyre concluded that the fifth terminal would have no discernible effect on the noise climate, and the Government did not attempt to challenge that point.

Mr. Jessel: Nonsense.

Mr. Haselhurst: The essential difference between the two cases is that, in any case, Heathrow will remain the major airport within the London system. The question is whether it is to be a decent and worthwhile airport. It may be asked whether Stansted is not also there already. Stansted occupies 900 acres. To make it the operational airport that it wants, the BAA is looking for almost twice as many acres on top—just for starters. That is the scale of what it is trying to do in north-west Essex.
Perhaps I should deal with the Schiphol argument, as it will no doubt rear its head again today. I do not want traffic going off to Schiphol but if interlining is the key, the choice must be Heathrow. I cannot envisage people taking a bus ride round the M25 believing that that is more convenient than going to Schiphol. If they went to Schiphol because London were, by chance, full, why should they not go to Manchester? Why should we not set out to ensure that we have another gateway airport which can do a good job for the British aviation industry?

Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is already massive interlining from the northern region to Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle because there are so few direct schedule services from Manchester because of the lack of expansion in direct services overseas that we have been allowed?

Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has helped to underline my case. Bearing in mind the


inspector's recommendations for what could be done to improve Heathrow and surrounding areas, it makes more sense to spend money on improving access, organisation and the environment at Heathrow before spending large sums of money in the Essex countryside.
The report offers too grand a design for too long a term. Mr. Eyre claims that his plan will cope with need into the early decades of the next century. That goes beyond what we can reasonably be expected to decide. History suggests that planning capability too far ahead is fraught with considerable dangers. Are there not technological developments that could render the basis of our decisions irrelevant? I noticed in the press at the weekend that there is a possibility of a train based on magnetic levitation which could reduce the journey time from Edinburgh to London to one hour and the journey from Birmingham to London to 20 minutes. If, in the next 40 years, such a project becomes reality, it will have a revolutionary effect on aircraft movements in Britain.
We cannot know the future in another sense — a matter on which I reacted strongly to Mr. Eyre's report. He said that Stansted should go ahead on the basis of his recommendation only if the Government give an unequivocal declaration of intent that there will never be a second runway. There was hollow laughter in my constituency about unequivocal declarations of intent. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne will share in that laughter because we have all had our unequivocal declarations. Why would Mr. Eyre have been sitting on his inquiry if the declarations of the past had had any validity?
We must try to find a sensible plan. I commend a plan with components that include a fifth terminal at Heathrow, a commitment to the regions, the possibility of Luton making more of a contribution than has hitherto been considered and a role for Stansted. I am not saying that Stansted should bear no part of the expansion in meeting the need of the south-east, but I believe that Stansted within its existing boundaries can do all that is required of it. If it is put on its feet and, perhaps, separated from the BAA, local people will feel that they have more control. That would also enable the Government to say that they are going for genuinely incremental growth to bridge any shortfall that might arise. That is what John Nott said when he began the operation in 1979.
The Government should satisfy need according to national priorities with regard to environment and expenditure. They should make Heathrow the best airport in the world for its users and neighbours and recognise the widely held view that north-west Essex is not the best possible place for an airport-led industrial growth centre on the scale that Mr. Eyre proposes. In choosing a package of this general description — I do not want to be too particular about details — the Government might find that they would give some agony to everyone but that the benefits and disbenefits could be distributed according to a sensible order of national priorities.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) has made a strong and brave speech, in which he sets out the case against the full development of Stansted. I agree with a great deal of what he said.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made some pertinent remarks about airline

policy. I agree with her that decisions on airport policy are interlinked with what we are about to do about our airlines. We have not debated that issue, but should have done. What will be the future of the independents? Will we encourage British Caledonian to grow? What will be the future of British Midland Airways and others?
If Stansted is to succeed as Mr. Eyre wants it to succeed, one of our independent airlines will have to establish a substantial base there. I do not see that happening at the moment. At the beginning of his summary, Mr. Eyre refers to strong public cynicism and the fact that there will never be consensus on airports policy. That is only too obviously confirmed by our mail and by the speches that have been made so far. No doubt there are many more similar speeches to be made. Mr. Eyre is right to say that there is a need for decisive action. With our national finances in disarray, we cannot afford to waste this opportunity of new investment in a vital wealth-creating sector of the economy.
I staked out my party's stance on Second Reading of the ill-fated Civil Aviation Bill. I have no regrets about how I cast my vote then or subsequently in Committee, because it was manifest nonsense to put that measure on the statute book before considering the implications of the report fully. Liberals have always favoured much greater emphasis on the development of regional airports, but neither the Government nor their predecessors have given as much encouragement as they should to such development. I regret having to criticise Mr. Eyre, because this is a fine report, but he treats the contribution that regional airports can make with insufficient thought.
With the privatisation of BAA still in the wings, and the abolition of the metropolitan county councils, the future ownership of fine airports such as Manchester, Birmingham and Prestwick is still not known. Moreover, applications for licences to use Manchester from Asian airlines such as Singapore Airlines have recently been refused. I am convinced that Manchester, possibly Birmingham, perhaps even Prestwick and one or two others can make a far more positive contribution to civil aviation policy than they are allowed to make at present.

Mr. Iain Mills: Birmingham airport is in my constituency. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that constituents who live 100 yd away from the taxiway would be extremely disadvantaged and most unhappy about the extra noise that would result from any major increase in traffic? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that traffic should be redirected from London to Birmingham?

Mr. Ross: I find that a strange intervention, as I have recently been to Birmingham. The airport has recently spent £60 million on development and lengthened the runway. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it does not want to encourage more use of the airport, that seems to be a terrible waste of money. Birmingham airport has the great advantage of rail links and a bus interchange and the National Exhibition Centre on its doorstep. If it is not policy to encourage people to fly in from the continent and America to use those facilities, I am surprised.
I welcome British Airways' renewed interest in Manchester, because when it was merged with BEA it let Manchester down. It is now proposing to reintroduce transatlantic flights this spring and intends to fly to the far east next year. That is much to be welcomed, but Manchester will need many more national and


international links if it is to develop as a hub and spoke airport. Such development is essential to its future well-being.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) spoke with great knowledge about Manchester airport. I shall not pursue his arguments, as I am nothing like as well qualified as he is to speak about Manchester. However, I hope that some of British Airways' promised financial help to the independents will encourage at least one of them to base itself at Manchester. We have only to go to Atlanta in the United States to see what United Airlines and Eastern Airways have done for that airport. An airline must invest heavily in Manchester if a hub and spoke system, which is desperately needed, is to be created. That would take some weight off London.
British Airways will naturally always want to base its principal operations at Heathrow. If Prestwick and Birmingham can attract more international and local flights, they should be actively encouraged to do so. Prestwick could easily be connected to British Rail. That might be its saviour. I am sorry that the gentleman who wishes to run cheap flights across the Atlantic has not yet received his licence. I cannot criticise the reason for that, which I gather is that the financial arrangements are not yet satisfactory. Nevertheless, if a People Express-type operation could use Prestwick, it could save that fine airport. It is essential that Manchester should have a direct link to the west coast main line as soon as possible. That should be an early commitment on behalf of the Government. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe will agree with that.
When dealing with Heathrow, the report clearly shows that there will be an increase above the 275,000 ATMs, if present trends continue. That is not an excessive limitation. The figure could rise to 300,000. The report further states that the figure will decrease again with the introduction of larger aircraft. In the consultation document which the Government issued last year it was repeated that the 275,000 limit, which the Government accepted six years ago, would be reviewed in the light of progress and the introduction of quieter aircraft. Those developments are now upon us and there does not seem to be a total commitment on the Government's part not to go above the 275,000 limit.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is opposed to the 275,000 limit? If so, is he not opposing the Government's wish to control aircraft noise by that limitation?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman has already issued a press release in his constituency blaming me for the defeat of the Civil Aviation Bill. I am not opposed to going slightly above the 275,000 limit. I shall come to the reason why shortly. We have not done enough about noise and traffic congestion. That must be rectified if Heathrow is to retain its dominance, which it will and must do.
Restrictions on ATMs at Heathrow, as the hon. Gentleman knows, hit the very people whom we wish to encourage, that is, the independent airlines, which were going to be forced out of Heathrow. That is the reason why we must go slightly above that figure. All the evidence shows that that is not unacceptable.
Extra finance for insulation aids is essential. The Secretary of State should take the opportunity to see what

The Japanese have done at Osaka and Norita. They have spent vast sums on dealing with environmental problems. People who live near those airports are far more satisfied than are citizens in the United Kingdom who live near airports because so much more has been done for them.
Mr. Eyre says that the Noise Advisory Council should be resuscitated, and that is a good idea. It is also extremely important that new connections are built as rapidly as possible both for public transport and to the motorways. I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that British Rail must be brought to the airfield as quickly as possible. He mentioned a link line between the southern and western regions. That would open up the whole country to public transport and to the public using Heathrow. That would greatly relieve traffic jams. We could even link the airfield to the Channel tunnel.
There should be a total ban on night movements except in emergencies. The Secretary of State should take that recommendation on board — it appears in chapter 58. Mr. Eyre makes a host of recommendations about noise, which the Government should accept. Money must be spent to lessen the misery of people living near airports. That can be done.
As Mr. Eyre said, the sewage works at Perry Oaks should have been moved long ago. That action should be taken now, whether or not it is decided to develop T5. The Thames water authority should be instructed to find an alternative site, if it needs one. Heathrow needs room to breathe and that action would keep our options open while we see how accurate the current forecasts are on traffic movements. As the hon. Member for Saffron Walden said, they have been fairly inaccurate in the past.
In 1979 I said that a limit of 15 million ATMs might be acceptable for Stansted. I have since changed my mind. Since then there has been substantial investment in many regional airports especially in Manchester and Birmingham. I also believe that the cost in terms of loss of amenities and high-class agricultural land is too great. Moreover, Stansted could turn out to be a monstrous white elephant. One only has to think of Newark, which was a white elephant for a long time.
As a recent leader in The Times stated, "Stansted can wait". We should let it develop naturally to the 4 million mark and then assess the position. If the demand is there we shall have to take action, but at the moment I do not believe that it is and, therefore, Stansted should be left alone to see what it can do for itself.
Following the report, the Secretary of State should give priority first to ensuring the future well-being of the independent airlines, on which so much of the future depends. We must not let British Airways totally dominate the scene. We should take steps now to improve the facilities at Heathrow before we talk of further expansion.

Mr. Jessel: The hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of improving facilities at Heathrow. Will he make it clear to the House whether or not he favours having a fifth terminal at Heathrow?

Mr. Ross: It would be a great mistake to make a commitment which I or a successor might regret in future. I shall not follow the path of previous ministerial mistakes. I am certainly not committing my party to T5 now, nor in the foreseeable future. I would encourage Manchester and any other regional airports that fancy their chances. I would continue to make improvements at Gatwick to press


on with Stolport, and to make better provision for business executives at Farnborough or Blackbushe. Above all, I would take urgent action to improve our public transport links to our airports, with particular emphasis on rail, which should be utilised to a greater extent than it has been. I have given a commitment and I believe to be an honest one.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). The House will appreciate the great sincerity of his speech and the skilful and dignified way in which he dealt with a position that must be extremely difficult for him. I respect and acknowledge many of his points.
I declare a constituency interest. Gatwick airport is in my constituency, as is the head office of the British Airports Authority, British Caledonian, British Airways, Dan Air and many other operations. I am therefore surrounded by a good deal of conflicting advice, which is why my remarks this evening are entirely my own conclusions.
Three important points make the basics of this matter. First, air transport is a thriving and growing industry in Britain. Recent growth has been rapid, and substantial further growth is predicted. The industry has a remarkable record in employment and in the creation of jobs. It has a wonderful record on the earnings of foreign currency and on bringing to Britain enormous numbers of foreign visitors, who have materially benefited our balance of trade. For the industry to continue this excellent record and, in particular, for it to continue to create a substantial number of jobs in future there must be an adequate airport capacity throughout the United Kingdom, especially in the south-east. The inspector has clearly identified when existing airport resources will be exhausted even if the arbitrary limit on air transport movements at Heathrow is relaxed.
Secondly, some views suggest that the development of airports in the midlands, the north and Scotland can replace the development of further facilities in the south-east of England. Airports away from the south-east are all developing strongly, and good luck to them, not just because there is a political will from this House and from the public corporations and others for them to develop, but because there is a strong demand for air transport which is being met by the development policies of those airports.
All the projections are that the growth of both scheduled and charter services at airports away from the south-east will continue. It will be necessary for those airports to be developed and I strongly support the principle. But in no way should that further development reduce the requirements in the south-east. Both can, must and should be met equally.
Thirdly, and most importantly, in the discussions to date there has been little reference to the interests of the customer. It has been a fundamental feature of Government policy that more attention should be paid to the needs of the customer in all sectors of our commercial life. The inspector has considered in depth the needs of the customer and he has found that those needs are best met by the provision of substantially more airport capacity for London and the south-east.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the customers who travel from the north of

England, Scotland and Wales who at the moment have to travel to the south of England will not be served by the expansion of Stansted but would be better served by the expansion of the regional airport system?

Mr. Soames: I hoped that I had made it clear that I am greatly in favour of the expansion of the regional airports.
The inspector has considered the needs of the customer. If we want those customers to use British airlines and British airports, there is no option but to provide for airport capacity in the area of the country to which they wish to fly. That, I am afraid, remains largely the London area. If that is not done, the customer will elect to overfly to another capital such as Paris or Amsterdam.
Any decision which does not favour a development of airport capacity in the south-east over the next 15 years will be a decision which ignores the interests of the customers and the opportunities for the air transport industry to create jobs and to earn more foreign currency. Indeed, I have here a letter from the chairman of Dan Air which makes it plain that unless his company is able to develop in the south-east it will not be open to him to assist in the development of the regional airports in the north. In what way could such a decision be consistent with any Government policy objective?
Let me now deal with the facts and figures about the British aviation industry. In 1983 the United Kingdom civil aviation industry earned a profit from the rest of the world of nearly £500 million. Over 100,000 people are directly employed in civil aviation in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom's civil airlines fly more passenger miles on international routes than any other country's airlines save those of the United States. The United Kingdom total is nearly twice that of France, our nearest European competitor.
In 1983 £18,000 million worth of foreign trade was handled at Gatwick and Heathrow alone — 15 per cent. of the total value of the United Kingdom's world trade. The best estimates are that, of the £4·25 billion that tourists brought to Britain last year, £3 billion was spent by 60 per cent. of the tourists who entered the United Kingdom through Gatwick and Heathrow.
I in no way decry the role of Manchester or any of the other regional airports, but by anyone's standards the industry is a formidable contributor to national prosperity. It is an industry in which, apart from the United States, we indisputably lead the world. For us not to face the disagreeable, tough and difficult decisions that lie ahead in a sensible manner would be to throw away an enormous national advantage.
The permissions already granted at Gatwick and Heathrow take those airports almost to saturation point and the limited development of Stansted—as recommended by the inspector and by the 1978 White Paper of the Government of which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was a member — is the most sensible, practical and easy course to adopt.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the views of the West Sussex county council on these matters, with which I entirely concur.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that a number of his hon. Friends from west Sussex are here to support him tonight and would wish to be associated with precisely what he has said?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had seen that I was much sustained by my hon. Friends from west Sussex.
Successive Governments have not faced up to the need to establish and sustain an airports policy. There have been attempts to determine policies in the past but resolve has always wavered when decisions to implement them have been sought. Perhaps over-zealous forecasting of future requirements has provided arguable grounds for procrastination and delay. That situation does, most emphatically, not now prevail.
The absence of decisions in the past has foreclosed many options, particularly the possibility of a new green field location, and the inspector's report has now picked a difficult and tortuous way through the options that remain open—better ultimate use of Stansted and more use of Heathrow. The inspector is right to suggest that that can make the necessary contribution within the required time scale and the proper aviation context.
If support for international aviation and the protection of Britain and London's position at the centre is to be sustained, as it should be, there is no alternative but to develop the strength of the London system where that is practical. The risks of not doing so are that international traffic will be lost, not to Manchester or Birmingham—sadly—but to Schiphol, Frankfurt or Paris.
Manchester and other regional airports already exist and have had opportunities to develop services. But that has not come about through any fault of their own but because the air transport industry cannot be persuaded in terms of the realities of life that those airports are part of the London system. I can assure the House that many years passed, as many hon. Members will know, before Gatwick was able to acquire real status as an international airport for that very reason.
The inspector's recommendation for Stansted is the only sensible one that can be made if capacity for the early 1990s is to be met.

Mr. Adley: rose—

Mr. Soames: May I, please, press on?
The inspector is right to seek firm assurances to limit Stansted's capacity to a single runway comparable with Gatwick. That reduces significantly some of the powerful arguments against a larger, more developed Stansted. The runway is already there. A motorway passes close by and the railway line is not too far distant. A new terminal and supporting developments such as servicing, cargo facilities, car parking and other airport-related facilities will obviously be needed. But the land consumed by those will be modest compared with the original proposals for a fully developed two-runway airport.
A second terminal may be necessary in the distant future, but if the Heathrow proposal is accepted and becomes operational in the 1990s that will be a long way off. The urban development, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden spoke, to support a Stansted expansion will also be correspondingly modest. Unemployment within the labour markets in the travel-to-work area and improved productivity suggest that the demand for new housing and the supporting infrastructure will be less than objectors have forecast. The only room for manoeuvre in the short term is now at Stansted. The resolve to proceed should not be compromised by wishful thinking that Manchester or Birmingham will do instead,

because I am afraid they will not. Many will argue that the investment needed to develop Stansted, and Heathrow later, should not be made in the affluent south-east and that it would help to remedy economic imbalance if it were to be made in other regions. I have sympathy with the idea behind that expression, but I do not believe that airport development is footloose in that way. If it is not made in the London system, it will not be made at all.
I now draw the attention of the House to the inspector's summary of overall conclusions in which he deals with the lessons from and the consequences of the past.

Mr. Tony Favell: My hon. Friend has talked about additional capacity in the south-east. Is it not a fact that the second terminal at Gatwick will increase capacity there by about 50 per cent.? Will my hon. Friend say something about the fact that the second terminal is slap bang across where a second runway could have been built?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me such a tremendous opportunity to say how grateful I was that the second terminal was located right where a second runway would have gone, because it forecloses the possibility of any development along those lines.
As I was saying, in the summary of overall conclusions the inspector said:
The history and development of airports policy on the part of administration after administration of whatever political colour has been characterised by ad hoc expediency, unacceptable and ill-judged procedures, ineptness, vacillation, uncertainty and ill-advised and precipitate judgments. Hopes of a wide sector of the regional population have been frequently raised and dashed. A strong public cynicism has inexorably grown. Political decisions in this field are no longer trusted.
Regardless of the very real and understandable concerns, the Government should accept the recommendations of the report. It has been an exhaustive, extensive and excursive inquiry, and the national interest, which should be paramount in this matter, dictates that the Government should accept the inspector's report, in which they should be sustained by the overwhelming majority of the House.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I can well understand the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) expressing a point of view that is tailored to his constituency. It is a valid point of view, considering the interests in his constituency, but it was obvious that it was not shared by all of his colleagues. When it comes to the vote, I hope many of them will join us in the Lobby because it is vital that we get away from the concept that when we debate air tranport we talk only about the south-east of England. It goes far wider. The trouble has been that the concept of air transport in the past has related only to the south-east. If someone is coming to this country by air, it has been very difficult to come in any other way than through the south-east.
A case should be made in the House for the development of the regional airports, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for putting that case. That view is shared by many Conservative Members. If the proposals outlined in the report go ahead, they will lead to a widening of the north-south divide—a divide that is far too wide already. The north gets a poor share of the national cake. Unemployment is far higher in the north


than in the south. Because of the Government's economic policy there has been an overall decline in industry, but that decline has been far more rapid in the north than in the south. Service industries are more developed in the south than in the north. The same occurs in the Health Service and in education.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced recently that aid to the regions will be cut. That will make the position far worse. If the development of Stansted goes ahead it will add to the burden that we have to bear in the north. I do not believe that it is possible to plan air transport to the year 2020. That is far too far ahead. It is reasonable to look only as far as the 1990s or the year 2000. The Eyre report has tried to look too far ahead. Therefore, hasty conclusions have been drawn in regard to Stansted. The inspector was trying to fill a gap to the 1990s but his recommendation is an expensive way to fill that gap. The cost would be £1,500 million to £2,000 million. That is money that should go to the regions.
We have to get away from the idea that the only way people can come here is to fly to London and then travel to the regions. A case should be made for the hub and spoke approach of using Manchester airport. Of the people who come in via London, 30 per cent. do not want to do so. They should be allowed to fly to the regions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe said that only 38 per cent. stay in London while the rest go elsewhere.
I represent a constituency, Warrington, North, with one of the most successful new towns, and a very successful science park. If we are to attract related industries, they want to be able to transport their goods all over the world. Therefore, they want good communications, which means airport facilities.
Airport facilities are also necessary for tourism. Chester is an important tourist centre in the north-west. If we are to attract tourists, regional airports, particularly Manchester, should be developed.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am fascinated by what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. I ask him to accept that I am not an enemy. Can he suggest how airlines can be persuaded to take up the licences that already exist but are not used for services in and out of Manchester? What positive suggestions can he make to encourage airlines to develop services? There is not a shortage of terminal facilities or gateways but the airlines are not going there. What does the hon. Member suggest?

Mr. Hoyle: That is a fair point, but airlines have been prevented from going to Manchester as a matter of policy. Manchester has been excluded as a gateway to the United Kingdom for United States airlines because a bilateral agreement between Britain and the United States discourages them even from considering operating scheduled services from Manchester. Other foreign airlines wishing to use Manchester have been refused licences by the Government unless a British carrier gains something in return. That is one of the problems that Manchester has faced. We all know that Singapore International Airlines wishes to fly from Manchester, but at present it is unable to do so.
We want to develop intercontinental services. British Airways has recently announced a gratifying expansion of services from Manchester. There will be flights to New York in April, to Hong Kong in the autumn, to Munich, Malta and Geneva this summer and to Athens, Madrid,

Oporto and Lisbon in 1986. Those are welcome signs for the future, but if Stansted goes ahead that welcome growth will be very much less. Even worse, not only will Manchester and other regional airports fail to develop fully but I fear that Speke airport in Liverpool may be forced to close. That would be a tragedy for Merseyside, with the loss of 500 direct jobs and many more indirect job losses. All airports generate jobs. Manchester accounts for 5,000 direct jobs and probably 15,000 indirect jobs. Here I must disclose an interest because 10 per cent. of the direct jobs are in Cheshire. Expansion is therefore vital to my area.
Manchester is at the centre of a region with 20 million people — 40 per cent. of the total United Kingdom population — whereas the south-east contains only one third of the population. There is no immutable rule that all major airport facilities should be in the south-east. If we are to attract employment as well as tourism to the regions we must do all that we can to ensure expansion of airport facilities. If Stansted goes ahead that development will be cut back and instead of getting away from overlocation of facilities in the south-east we shall underpin the existing system and further impoverish the regions. We do not want that to happen. We want the regional airports to expand. The success of Manchester shows that this could be achieved, with feeder services from the other regions. I do not share the pessimistic view that if Stansted does not go ahead the benefit will go to the continent.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Not every hon. Member can speak in every debate, but he will appreciate that the case being made by the hon. Gentleman is of as much concern to people in my constituency as it is to those in his. The extension of Ringway airport and investment in those facilities and the jobs that they support in our area are thus equally important to both of us although we are on different sides of the House.

Mr. Hoyle: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that intervention. We both have thick files of correspondence from companies in our constituencies pressing for the expansion of Ringway airport. It is no use spending public money on developing an attractive new town such as Warrington if the aim is then defeated because the airport is not expanded as the industries so successfully attracted to the area desire. Warrington has become one of the most successful new towns and a most attractive place to live, but businesses coming in regard the expansion of scheduled services and cargo facilities at the airport as vital to success in the future. They are glad that the new cargo terminal is going ahead, but the scheduled services are equally vital.
I have noted the number of interventions from Conservative Members to rebut the argument that the south-east is the answer to all our problems. I fear that if Stansted goes ahead it will not even be ready in the 1990s as the inspector has suggested. It may also prove to be a white elephant, involving vast and unnecessary expense. In looking to the year 2020 the inspector has looked much too far ahead. We cannot foresee what will happen by then, but if we go ahead with regional development we shall begin to see what further developments are necessary. The inspector suggests that Stansted will make a huge leap, catering for 15 million and eventually 25 million passengers per year, but we do not know whether airlines will go there. Charges will be low because the BAA is subsidising them, but we do not know whether that


will be sufficient incentive. The Government will have to provide further inducements, but I fear that after all the disturbance and expense the traffic will not materialise. We know that there is demand for additional traffic in the regions. We know that the regions will respond, as the success of Manchester shows.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that he intended to listen to the arguments. I hope that everyone will listen. Even better, I hope that Conservative Members will express their disquiet in action by voting with us today. The Government will then appreciate fully the extent of the opposition to the Stansted proposal among Members on both sides of the House. The question crosses party lines and it cannot be decided on a party political basis. We must reach a decision based on what is best for the national interest. It cannot be good to widen the north-south divide in this way. The divide is already widening. One way to redress the balance is to put more money into the regions.
If we do not put more money into regional airport developments we shall be cutting off an arm that is vital to the regions, especially the north, in attracting new industry if there is an upturn in the economy. Without that development, we shall be competing with both hands tied behind our back. I hope that in the Division today the whole House will show that the answer lies not in Stansted but in developing the regional airport system.

Mr. Fred Silvester: The average length of speech so far has been 23 minutes. I hope to be rather quicker than that.
Mr. Eyre, the inspector, described himself as a "reluctant volunteer" in this exercise, and I think that there is every reason for that. This is clearly a political decision. The method of using the planning inquiry is proving very unsatisfactory.
I give my thanks to the Government for arranging the debate. I have never criticised them, nor do I, for not tabling a substantive motion, but it leaves the House in a difficulty. I hope that somebody is beavering away in my right hon. Friend's Department to find a better way of coming to solutions and bringing these matters before the House in future.
The inspector has deluged us with figures. There is not a lot to be said for trying to quote them all, but one thing must be said. On the inspector's own figures the case for a massive expansion of capacity in the south-east has not in my view been made out if one interprets that massive increase as the necessity to build Stansted to the extent he sets out.
In 1985, to use the inspector's figures, there will be nearly 10 per cent. more capacity than passengers. In 1990, there will be about 4 per cent. more capacity than passengers. I refer to the south-east, using his figures. After 1995, if one accepts terminal 5—and I know that some of my hon. Friends would not — but without Stansted there will be 13 per cent. more capacity than passengers. It is not until 2000, if one accepts the inspector's figures, which most of us do not, that one begins to go over the top. On this basis there would be no urgency for any of us who did not object to the development of the fifth terminal.
Now hold on a minute, says Eyre, "there is a problem between 1993 and 1995; we shall go over the top before the terminal is completed. The shortfall amounts to 25 million passengers, he says, if BAA fully utilises its assets at Heathrow and Gatwick rising to 8·5 million if it does not.
Even if those projections are not overestimated, as I believe that they are, the shortfall is still based on the assumption that Luton does not go up to 5 million, that Stansted does not exceed 2 million and that there will be virtually no growth in the share of the regional airports between 1990 and 1995. None of those three propositions seems to me to be tenable.
If one takes those three possibilities, one observes that there is plenty of opportunity to fill his perceived gap without going into massive investment in Stansted. On the other hand, if we proceed with Stansted, we make proposals for another 15 million passengers at minimum, we have an expenditure of give or take £1 billion and the destruction of a large area of the countryside in order, let us be clear, to relieve the pressure on BAA and tour operators for the need of a little ingenuity and effort between 1993 and 1995.
The inspector's case for Stansted therefore rests in my view not on present needs but on future prospects. He wants to find a solution until 2020. The inspector said:
… the London airports system must have a capacity capability which could meet needs as, when and if they arise over a period of the next 30 years or more.
Such a proposition is untenable. If it were applied to any other activity, the people involved would of course applaud it. But it is absurd to suppose that such resources can be diverted as, when and if they may arise over 30 years.
The inspector's report is riddled with his fixation for certainty and the desire to complete the whole issue once and for all. I think that he wants to go down in history as the man who did it. He says:
The production of a committed strategy now should remove the need for major reappraisals, examinations, studies and inquiries during the next 30 years or more.
Such a conclusion shows that intelligence is no guard against naivete.
My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) drew attention to the changes that are occurring in technology. If we are considering the period between now and 2020, I am convinced that our children will be on package tours into outer space by then. The only certainty in all this is that the pace of technical change has far outgrown the ability of people to forecast accurately the way in which airport movements will develop.
As to the effect on the north, the inspector, as one might expect, was dismissive of the case for the north. He showed intense irritation. It seemed as though one was disturbing the smooth running of his mathematical model. Many of the points that he dismissed were not so daft as he seemed to imagine. He dismissed 1 per cent. of public expenditure on the airport alone as insignificant. I should like to hear that confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment. The inspector dismissed the proposition that profitable nationalised institutions such as BAA should make a contribution to the Exchequer. I look forward to having confirmation of that from the Chancellor. The inspector ignored totally the general economic effects of airport development in the northern region.
More important, the report spells out clearly why Stansted as planned will siphon off the growth from the


regional airports. The inspector himself does the job. He is describing not three airports but an airport system. He is talking about a
single category A gateway international airports system.
It is one airport in three places. The object of the exercise is to transfer non-scheduled and other leisure services to Stansted in order to transfer scheduled services from Heathrow to Gatwick. Luton, it is said, will attract leisure services inside and outside the south-eastern area.
The concept of one south-eastern airport sounds fine as a unit until one examines what it means in practice. The British Airports Authority made a profit on its trading concessions last year of £98·8 million. Only Heathrow broke even on traffic costs. Four million pounds went to Stansted. We are told by Mr. Payne that that subsidy is to continue.
British Airways sent all Members of Parliament a position paper which says:
As an inducement to prospective airlines/users, Stansted charges would remain lower than those at Heathrow or Gatwick. Considering Gatwick expansion as a discrete investment, the level of income generated would be unlikely to be sufficient to provide an adequate return on capital employed. In such circumstances, Stansted would rely on a cross-subsidy from Heathrow/Gatwick.
At present that £4 million works out at £11 per passenger. Applied to Manchester, it means that the airport would be getting the equivalent of £66 million subsidy a year. I am not asking for a subsidy — we do not want one — but I am making clear the size of the operation already taking place at Stansted. Tour operators at Stansted will be paying £1,079 in landing fees. In Manchester the figure is £3,995. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) asked why Manchester is so dear. In fact, Manchester is the cheapest outside London. The reason why London is cheap is that if one multiplies that £11 by the 450 passengers in a jumbo one comes pretty close to the subsidy affecting Stansted.
It is clear that whatever my right hon. Friend decides to do we must be certain that Stansted is maintained as a discrete operation, relying upon its own operations to make its own profits. I wonder whether, if that condition is imposed, the British Airports Authority will be quite so keen to take it on.
Today we are confronted with many scares. One of them is that we are trying to compel people to go north. There is a certain irony in that because for years people in the north have been trundling down to Luton to pick up their tours. Some of us did not take kindly to the CAA which is reported as saying
Short of compelling people in London and the South East to travel by road and rail to the Midlands and North in order to catch flights … 
We have been doing that for 10 or 15 years, so that that is a bit thick.
We are not seeking compulsion. If the imbalance in subsidy between Stansted and the regional airports were put right the ability of those airports to compete, particularly in the leisure trade, would be much sharpened and there would be a considerable movement in the airlines' own choice about where they sought to go.
The second limitation on the development of the airports is licensing. Reference has been made to unused licences. There is a penumbra about negotiations which never quite come to the surface. The Ministry will say "We have not had an application." The reason is that people will not spend nine months preparing an application if they

know that it will be turned down. There is a lot of wink and nod in this business. Some licences which were dropped have been taken up again.
Specific and important changes have to be made. For example, we cannot fly into Manchester from the United States if we do not use BA. We are covered by the Bermuda 2 agreement. That applies to freight as well as passengers. I referred to an example the other day because it staggered me. The largest American freight airline is Flying Tigers. Four times a week that airline flies between Brussels and New York. About 70 per cent. of the freight comes from the north of England. It goes by truck and boat to Brussels and is flown in an aircraft which passes over Manchester airport.
I know that my right hon. Friend will do his best to bring about changes in Bermuda 2, but he may not be so keen about some other matters. Many licences have been opposed by British Airways in the past. It is a matter of assessing whether the development of the airports is as important, more important or less important than British Airways' profits.
Let us take the classic case of Singapore Airlines. Opening up the route between Singapore and Manchester would mean some loss of money to British Airways. Our estimate is about £2 million revenue, which means that we are talking about a much lower sum in terms of profit. One must set against that the fact that our business men have to take an extra day off, and other factors. These matters have to be decided with a fresh mind. We have to look at them from the point of view of the people who use the regional airports. If we do that, we shall begin to see a different ball game. We should consider better the tourist trade and improved communications by rail and accelerate the links with the main rail lines. We should make a better effort to ensure that the 29 per cent. of people who begin their journey in the regions are accommodated in the regions.
My right hon. Friend is a worldly-wise man. I think that he and I share a scepticism about many of the propositions put before us which parade as idealism but which are merely vested interests dressed up. However, I urge him, just occasionally, to recognise that for some issues scepticism is a bad guide. Opposition to the Eyre report is one such issue.
There is a solution in which practicality, realistic planning and vision walk hand in hand. In coming to that conclusion, I want to leave my right hon. Friend with this thought. I want him to understand clearly that the sense of division in the country is not drummed up for the occasion. It burns in the minds of people of all politics, and of none. It is not a passing fashion. One can feel it; one can taste it. It is in the very pulse of the north. The remedy does not lie in huge sums of money — though they may be important — nor in yet more statistical analyses. The remedy lies in commitment and, above all, in imagination.
The Eyre report is the product of an unimaginative, legal and bureaucratic tradition that the Government set out to challenge. It is clever, polite, arrogant, logical—and wrong. It is concerned with established guidelines for policy and not with establishing a new national policy.
Despite the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), which I found offensive and silly, I am asking all my right hon. and hon. Friends who feel that the massive expansion at Stansted should not take place to vote with Opposition Members for the Adjournment of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that the 10 minute limit on speeches is now in operation. I appeal for co-operation. If time is nearly running out, I shall try to assist hon. Members with some sign language.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I am grateful for being given the chance to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester), who made two observations which have thrown my speech somewhat. He began by condemning the Eyre report. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has the full report with her. I am sure that she will pass it round to any hon. Members who wish to read it. I have only the summary. Chapter 10 on page 28 bears out what the hon. Member for Withington said. Paragraph 7.7 of the conclusion states:
Regional airports should not"—
note the words—
and cannot make so large a contribution to satisfying future demand as to remove or substantially reduce the need for further capacity in the south-east.
We know the inspector's view right from the start—he is totally prejudiced.
Hon. Members of my age group in the Chamber today will remember that when the silent films gave way to the talkies the Indian always used to say to the cowboy "White man speak with forked tongue." Likewise speaks the chairman of the British Airports Authority. He knows my view. He tells us in the north that he has no objection to regional airports. One must ask what he has done to assist the regions. The answer is, precisely nothing. When the Civil Aviation Bill was going through the House I said that it was the "Civil Aviation (Norman Payne) Bill". He has left his mark on the report.

Mr. Gale: Of course he was heard. He gave evidence to the inquiry—so did NOERC.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Of course he was heard, but this is supposed to be a neutral report. The hon. Gentleman should not be excessively influenced by one person or one organisation. The north-west and the north have been ignored. The views of the people of Manchester are not unknown. We believe that we deserve a share. I agree totally with the recommendation in the Eyre report that Heathrow should be expanded. I believe that the figure of 275,000 movements per annum was plucked out of the air.
When I last spoke on this issue, I referred to the time, 45 years ago, when I was a navigator. When we returned to base we were stacked at various levels, normally at 500 ft., and wondered whether our fuel would run out. The stacking caused noise problems in the area. This is happening above places like Midhurst. It is no laughing matter if one lives at Midhurst. However, there have been substantial advances in technology since then. To put my point in perspective, I should mention that at the end of the war I was using some of the most advanced radar equipment in the world. When I now enter a cockpit, I am staggered by what can be done.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Gentleman says that he agrees with the Eyre recommendation about Heathrow. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned noise. Does he not think that it was a little presumptive of Eyre to recommend that there should be a

curfew, not only at Heathrow, but at Gatwick, when his inquiry did not consider the problem of noise? No evidence on noise was taken. Surely, therefore, the number of movements into and out of Heathrow is pre-empted if a stipulation is imposed that there should be a curfew. Because of the technological advances to which the hon. Gentleman referred, surely it is time for the curfew to be a thing of the past.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Traffic-handling methods will be substantially improved. Aircraft will stay on course and will be controlled from perhaps 2,000 miles away. These methods will result in economic cruising and low speed safe flying. As for the hub and spoke concept, aircraft like the Super 748, the ATP and the 146 will be extremely quiet. They are mainly hub and spoke aircraft. Therefore, their operational performance will improve. This bears out the point made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).
There will be similar advantages with long-haul flights. The Airbus is a much quieter aircraft. Those of us who used to try to sleep at the end of a grass runway with a couple of Merlin engines going over every two minutes sympathise with those who live near Heathrow. However, the noise level at Heathrow will steadily decrease, particularly by 1986, when the Trident will be phased out. The BAC111s will be able to fly only if they are fitted with hush kits. The new generation of aircraft will be quieter. We shall move to about 330,000 movements per annum at Heathrow, with less noise being generated. So the figure plucked out of the air of 275,000 movements per annum is no longer sacrosanct. Therefore, I support the creation of a fifth London terminal and an increase in the number of landings at Heathrow.
However, I cry, "Halt, hold, enough" about Stansted. I want there to be positive discrimination in the interests of the regions. The British Airports Authority practises discrimination over its pricing policy at Stansted and Luton. The local authority at Luton has complained bitterly that, while Stansted was and is being subsidised by Heathrow and Gatwick for handling predominantly charter flights, Luton, which is engaged in the same business, is being undercut on account of cross-subsidisation by the British Airports Authority. It seems that Eyre is a very expensive proposition if it is related to what is said by the BAA. We are told that Stansted will be a super charter airport. Although it may take some scheduled flights, it will be used mainly by charter aircraft. That is unfair.
I deal next with the north-west and the north, a deprived area that needs to be supported. Questions have been asked about why certain routes have not been taken up. Predominantly, it is because they are unattractive routes. It is as simple as that. Let us not make a mystery out of something that is simple. I hope that the projected flights by British Airways from Manchester to the United States and from Manchester to Hong Kong are a great success. This region needs to be supported. This project demonstrates what can be done with scheduled flights. If flights were attracted to the north, the load factor in the south-east would be relieved. Instead of traffic being diverted from Heathrow to Schiphol, it will be diverted from Heathrow to Manchester. There will be positive discrimination in favour of the north-west.
My only regret is that Ministers will not be present for the vote tonight.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). I cannot support all that the hon. Member said. Nevertheless, I respect his tremendous experience and his views concerning regional airports. I shall confine my remarks to the reasons why I believe that a fifth terminal should not be constructed at Heathrow. I do not intend to deal with other issues. However, the Government must reach a conclusion on Stansted, Gatwick and the provincial airports. They must make up their mind about how to approach the matter and at the same time satisfy both the major and the smaller airlines.
Even if we began work tomorrow on a fifth terminal it could not be completed before 1996. That is an important matter. Even if we began work this week upon that terminal it would be too late to meet the immediate demand. Even if work upon the necessary road and rail connections were to begin now, they could not be completed before the year 2000. Even if it were authorised, this would be too late.
My constituency is one of the worst affected by noise. I have fought consistently to reduce the noise, by pressing for a limit on the number of flights and by urging the development of quieter aircraft. Such planes will result in some reduction of the noise. The noise level under the Heathrow flight path is not only almost unendurable during the day, but is unacceptable at weekends. I do not accept that the noise can be reduced in the immediate future, whether or not quieter aircraft are introduced.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the Roskill commission, the third terminal, the number of flights being limited to 275,000 a year, the fourth terminal and so on. I thought that the fifth terminal had been buried without trace. Unfortunately, it was brought back to life by a planning application by Uttlesford District Council.
I object to the fifth terminal because it will lead to increased noise, traffic congestion and the removal of the Perry Oaks sewage station. There is also considerable opposition from local councils. Between 500,000 and 1 million people already suffer the almost unendurable noise under the flight path to Heathrow. The removal of the sewage plant might not take as long as was first thought, but it would still delay the building of a fifth terminal. Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Surrey county councils and others oppose the building of a fifth terminal. I received a letter today from Berkshire county council setting out its objections.
One of the most difficult problems posed by a fifth terminal would be road congestion. Cromwell road is the most congested part of London apart from Hyde Park corner. The extension of the Piccadilly line was welcome, but I am told that it carries only 8 per cent. of the Heathrow traffic. Whatever we do, we cannot improve the road network. The Cromwell road and Talgarth road areas are so built up that it would be impossible to widen those roads. Even if they were widened, they could still not take all the traffic. If a fifth terminal is built, traffic will be nose to tail from central London to 10 miles outside the city. Even if the rail link were completed and the Piccadilly line were extended further, people would still choose to use the roads, which would result in enormous traffic congestion.
The Government have given numerous promises that a fifth terminal would not be built. Sir John Nott said:

we do not favour a fifth terminal, and that is also the view of the inspector." — [Official Report, 21 February 1980; Vol. 979, c. 694.]
On 3 November 1980, in column 411, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in answer to a question that the Government's view remained the same as was stated in the House on 17 December 1979. On 23 July 1981, in column 193, in answer to a question put by me my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade confirmed the Government's views again and, on 3 March 1982, I intervened repeating the Government's pledges. Pledges were also given on 22 February 1984 in column 948, on 21 November 1984 in column 301 and on 20 December 1984 in column 567. The Government have given unequivocal pledges that they will not construct a fifth air terminal.
Apart from increases in noise levels, practical difficulties will be caused by the building of a new terminal. Much more important, though, are the pledges given by the Government. The circumstances have not altered and I trust that the Government will honour those pledges.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is always generous in giving way, but he was not able to give way to me today when I wanted to ask him a question. The form of our debate was inevitable because of the legal complications, but a vote in the House will be of no significance, because it could be interpreted outside as a vote for or against the fifth terminal and for or against the development of Stansted. The whole thing is mixed up. If hon. Members vote to reject the inspector's report, are they rejecting the fifth terminal? Are they rejecting the development of Stansted? Are they rejecting regional airports policy? The truth is that they will be rejecting the lot.
Surely the object of the debate is to give the Government the opportunity of listening to those of us who have constituency and national interests at heart and to form a judgment on our views.

Mr. George Walden: My hon. Friend says that any vote in the House could be interpreted in any way, but I hope that no vote will be interpreted as opening the way to a reconsideration of a green field site.

Dr. Glyn: I agree with my hon. Friend. A vole in the House would be meaningless because the public and the press could interpret it as meaning whatever they wanted it to mean.
The Government gave a pledge and I rely on them to make sure that it is honoured.

Mr. Peter Pike: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and to follow the excellent contributions that have already been made.
The debate is important, and the Secretary of State said that he would listen carefully to what was said. I hope that he will also take careful note of what is said. Ministers will not be voting at the end of the debate, and it is therefore important that as many Conservative Members as possible vote to show the strength of the House's feeling on this issue.
I strongly support the case put by the NOERC, and I oppose the major development of Stansted. I support a


national airports policy, with more development of regional airports. That will best meet the needs of the nation in the years ahead.
The financial involvement in Stansted would be £450 million for the airport and associated developments, £160 million for a rail link and between £500 million and £1 billion for infrastructure, depending on the ultimate potential of the airport. That investment will be made at the expense of other parts of the country. It will not be additional public expenditure, and the other parts of the country will have to pay for that major investment in the south. That is a major factor.
Airports attract jobs, and I am aware of the developments that took place because of the foresight of the former Manchester city council, and later of the Greater Manchester and city of Manchester councils, which co-operated with each other. I have that awareness because at one stage I lived close to Manchester airport. The councils have always been prepared to develop the airport in advance of demands to meet the needs of those in the area. Job opportunities are not confined to Manchester airport. Developments within the airport have a ripple effect in the area generally.
Unemployment in the north is far worse than in the south. In the south as a whole there is unemployment of between 6 and 9 per cent., and in the Stansted area there is a very low rate of unemployment. It would be wrong to create more job opportunities in an area where opportunities are already better than elsewhere instead of taking the development to the north. Job opportunities for white collar and service industry employees in my constituency are minimal as it is heavily over-dependent on manufacturing industries. It is over-dependent also on factories and other industrial buildings which were erected before 1914, which have long since seen their better days. It is important that development money should be put into the regions.
There are about 20 million people living in the area around Manchester airport, and if more services were available from the airport they would be used. By concentrating on Manchester airport, I do not underestimate the importance of developing other regional airports. I am emphasising the importance of Manchester because I am well aware of its importance in constituency terms. If those living in the Manchester area want to take a flight from Manchester airport for their holidays, it is necessary for them to make an early booking with the travel companies. That is imperative if they want a flight direct from Manchester. Two years ago I tried to get a flight to Bulgaria from Manchester and was unable to do so. Ultimately, I had to accept a flight from Gatwick.
Bringing one's wife and children down from Manchester to London so as to fly from Gatwick can involve considerable additional cost. Those who do so will opt to fly, to travel by train or to use their car. There is extra expense, and sometimes great inconvenience. Those who use their car are left wondering in what state they will find the car when they return from their fortnight's holiday.
I am glad that the Minister for Housing and Construction is on the Government Front Bench because I am aware that he received a copy of a letter which appeared in the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago on housing development. The letter which was sent to him

was signed by Mr. Alf Norris and Mr. Patton, the chairman and secretary of the National Housing and Town Planning Council for the North West Regional Executive Committee. The letter is directed to the housing development that would have to take place at Stansted. This would happen at the expense of housing in other areas.
The letter reads:
During the past few years housing programmes have borne the major part of public expenditure cuts and the incidence of identified homelessness has increased. Against such a background many local housing authorities will view the recommended development of Stansted with concern and dismay. In his report Mr. Graham Eyre, QC estimates that a projected capacity of 15 million passengers a year would require the construction of some 10,000 new homes and if capacity were boosted to 25 million passengers some 17,000 new homes might be required. The evidence presented to the inquiry by the Department of the Environment made it clear that development in and around Stansted should be facilitated by a reallocation or re-distribution of resources and the Government could not be committed to provide new additional capital investment.
If that is taken literally, it means that the Government will deprive other areas to pay for development at Stansted. At the same time as paying for that development, they will not get the type of air service that they require in the region. I am sure that the argument on housing could be advanced to cover hospitals, schools and many other items of infrastructure.
It is clear that financial and infrastructure developments, and future Government capital investment would have greater emphasis on the south if the Stansted development were to go ahead. It is believed in the north that there is currently a two-nation divide. If the Government decide to go ahead with the Stansted development, the divide will become even wider. That will strengthen the belief of many that the Government intend to make Britain a two-nation state.
It is no good issuing licences and then saying that they are not taken up if they do not include destinations to which people wish to travel. It is obviously important that passengers should be able to fly direct to America from Manchester. Many industrialists in my constituency have emphasised the importance of communications. They speak of the need to improve the motorways and the railway system and stress that there should be much better direct air connections to the continent and the United States.
The argument that I am presenting is supported fully by Lancashire county council, which believes firmly in the proposals of the North of England Regional Consortium. Those proposals are supported in turn by the North East Lancashire development association.
I presume that within the past couple of days most hon. Members have received the book entitled "Deadlock at Stansted: The Way Out" by Sir Colin Buchanan. We all know of Sir Colin's reputation on road transport. I am sure we are all aware that he served on the commission which considered the third London airport in 1968–70. Sir Colin's conclusions are important. The book states:
Complicated and intertwined and to some extent unassessable though the issues in this controversy may be, they nevertheless seem amenable to a commonsense judgement. It cannot be said that a proven case exists for a third London airport; the London airports system as postulated by the Inspector seems designed to continue a heavy draw-in of traffic from the regions to the disbenefit of regional travellers; to give the regional airports greater scope would make sense in relation to the spread of the population and would aid economic recovery; and finally there is the incontrovertible environmental case against the expansion


of Stansted expressed by many parties with a strength and conviction which no government could over-ride except by decree little short of brutality.
Everything surely points in one direction, namely to leave the position as it is described in the guide book".
That sums up the case, and I hope that when the Division takes place Conservative Members will support Opposition Members in the Lobby.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is 12 years since my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the then Prime Minister, told me to get on with the job of building a third London airport and to have it ready by about 1985. The reason for his instruction was the report to which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has referred. It told us that by 1985 to 1990, on all the projections of the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority and the other aviation organisations, London would be so clogged with aircraft and passengers that everything would come to a dead stop.
We are now in 1985. We all know that I failed—and that the third London airport was not built. However, London has not come to a dead stop. That leads me to conclude that the Government should be sceptical of all the statistical certainties that are offered to them by experts. Sir Norman Payne has been quoted today as calling Stansted an "oasis of opportunity". Norman Payne, as he was when I was an Under-Secretary of State in the Department of the Environment and the responsible Minister, told me that Stansted was the wrong place and that the right decision was Maplin.
Had we gone for Maplin, it would have been the right decision for the nation and the right decision for hon. Members who represent people around Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton because we would have moved the growth of traffic away from these places and put it where it belongs — on a site adjacent to the sea. But for the fact that the Conservatives lost the 1974 election, Maplin would today be in operation. In the event, the Labour party killed it. As a result, we now face the sad fact that we shall require more airport capacity in the south-east by the early 1990s, but we do not have it. So the only question is where is that capacity to be provided.
My view is similar to that of British Airways, whose chairman I admire. I favour increasing the use of Stansted to the capacity that it now has. That could probably reach to between 4 million and 5 million passengers per year, and while that would not be greatly popular in the area such development could be sustained. It could also be done quickly and relatively cheaply, and with the M11 already in place that would be a sensible decision to take.
Secondly, I strongly favour an improvement of our regional airports. But I am not in favour of coercing people. We should go for the development of regional airports, notably Manchester, in line with genuine market demand. I am not sure what that demand is. We heard from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about the Bulgarian airline's letting down Manchester. Perhaps it had reasons for doing that. I favour increasing regional airports but only at the rate that proper market demand will bring about.
Neither of those solutions — the development of Stansted and developing the regions—will fill the gap in London. I have therefore come to the reluctant conclusion

that the right decision is to get on now with the fifth terminal on the sewage works at Heathrow. I regret to have to say this because I, too, as a Minister gave pledges that we would not increase Heathrow airport nor build at Stansted. But we are today in a new situation. We have to deal with things as they are.
We should, therefore, get on fast with the fifth terminal at Heathrow, and I must tell my hon. Friends, whose feelings, heaven knows, I understand, that this will not be as bad as they fear. Fortunately, there has been a dramatic quietening of aircraft. The noise problem will not be as severe as they suggest.
Unfortunately, our record as a nation in getting on with great and imaginative projects is not good. We did not do the Thames barrier well. We have failed so far with the Channel tunnel. That is why I am concerned over the inspector's depressing conclusion that we could not build a fifth terminal at Heathrow before 1995 or later, that it could take 15 years. That is not acceptable to a modern nation. I appreciate the differences, but we built an airport on the Falklands in about 18 months.
The problem, however, is not the building but the planning. There is the rub. The Minister will find in his Department, if he turns up the records, ample material from the water industry — I had some reponsibility for that, too — to demonstrate that the technology is available rapidly to change the sewerage system at London airport, by flaring and other systems. We do not need, as the inspector suggested, two or three years to test the feasibility of removing the sludge beds. It is feasible. Nor do we need three or four more years to complete the removal of the sewage works to another place. All of that could and should be truncated.
The Government should therefore decide quickly to get on with the fifth terminal and put all their backing behind it. Let them bring before Parliament a special development order. Never mind having further planning inquiries. Let us get on with it now, reflecting on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) that Governments of both parties have lacked the ability to grip exciting, important national projects and carry them through effectively.
What my right hon. Friend wants to hear today is where we stand. I recommend that we should take Stansted to its existing capacity, build up the regional airports as far as possible in accordance with what the market demands and, above all, go now for the fifth terminal at Heathrow. Let us make London the best and most modern airport in the world.

Mr. Tony Favell: Hon. Members will note that I am wearing a Manchester International airport tie. Thus, my allegiance is not in any way hidden. Manchester International is extremely important to my constituency. The only trouble with it is that it is not called Stockport international as it should be because it is only 10 minutes away from Stockport and the main flight path goes directly over my constituency.
Despite the extreme importance of that airport to my constituency, I join other hon. Members — this shows that we are not being dog in the manger over the issue—in recognising the necessity for some expansion in the south-east, although that is contrary to the view of many pressure groups in the south-east. Indeed, to us in the north-west which is short of jobs and suffering great


unemployment problems, it seems extraordinary to build a second terminal at Gatwick right in the centre of the place where the second runway should be, all to reduce expansion.
We would give our right arm for that sort of chance around Manchester. We find it equally extraordinary that people in the vicinity of Heathrow should be campaigning against further development, although that would result in a boost to the economy and more jobs. Because we find that extraordinary, we in the north-west are inclined to say, "A curse on your house and to heck with you in the south-east."
However, we have a duty to United Kingdom Ltd. and we recognise the extreme importance to Britain of the aircraft and airline industry. For that reason, and having studied the figures, we accept that there must be some expansion in the south-east. Where is that expansion to take place? The choice seems to be between terminal 5 at Heathrow and an expansion of Stansted, or both.
The Department of Transport has accepted that there is need for expansion, at the most by 15 million passengers, and it is clear that the best place for that expansion is Heathrow. That is where the passengers want to be. At present, Heathrow is the largest and most successful hub airport in Europe. To retain its success, it must expand, otherwise the traffic will go to Schiphol or Paris—not because Stansted has not expanded but because Heathrow has not expanded. That will drive additional transport away from the south-east, and the sooner we recognise that the better.
Anybody who has taken an interest in the airline industry realises the importance of hub airports. Where better to look for proof of that than Atlanta where, with a population of just over 1 million, that city last year catered for 38 million passengers. That happened merely by developing a hub network. If we do not continue to expand our hub network at Heathrow, we shall be failing not just the south-east and the north but the whole nation.
It is nonsense to suggest that scheduled traffic can move to Stansted. It will not move there. People do not want to go there. We have seen what happened when people tried to direct traffic from Heathrow to Gatwick. We remember that Air Canada, Air Portugal and Iberian Airways said, "Over our dead bodies." In fact, they did not go to Gatwick and, in the end, British Airways moved its Iberian routes there and suffered a great loss.
There is absolutely no need for development at Stansted. There is the proposed terminal 5 at Heathrow, the second terminal at Gatwick, now being built, and there is capacity at Luton by catering for 3 million. During the past four years the number of flights into Luton has decreased because of the predatory methods adopted by the British Airports Authority at Stansted and Gatwick. That is what will happen to the rest of the regional airports throughout the midlands and the north of England if this vast airport at Stansted is expanded to take 15 million passengers. It is clear that the only flights to use Stansted will be charter flights, no scheduled flights. That will have dreadful effects on the regions.
Only 7 million or 8 million charter flights use airports in the south-east. From where will the expansion to 15 million passengers come? Assuming that every single charter flight moved from Heathrow and Gatwick to Stansted, there would still be room for another 7 million

passengers. Obviously, the extra traffic will come from the regional airports — East Midlands, Leeds-Bradford, Birmingham, Manchester and Luton — and will have a devastating effect on those regions.
Clearly, we must improve the scheduled services from Manchester, and I support what hon. Members representing the north-west have said. I point out to those hon. Members who represent airports in the midlands and north of England the number of charter flights as a percentage of international flights using airports in the regions: East Midlands, 90 per cent.; Leeds—Bradford, 72·7 per cent.; Birmingham, 73·5 per cent.; Manchester, 81·6 per cent.; and Luton, 99·6 per cent. Would not Sir Norman Payne like this 15 million capacity leisure airport at Stansted? What effect would that have on the regions, losing not what they hope to obtain in the future but what they already have?

Mr. David Young: The one mistake that hon. Members have not made in this debate is to argue that this is a party political matter. It is extremely useful that the Ministers will not participate in the vote. It is important to recognise that ministerial pronouncements are not exactly written on tablets of stone, no matter which party the Ministers represent. The atrophying effect of office as shown in a person's mental attitude seems to suggest that some people do not look at the position outside the south as flexibly as one would hope.
I hope that we are arguing for a distribution of airports, which are vital economic necessities covering and servicing not just one part of Britain, of which London is the capital, but the whole of the United Kingdom. It is valuable to point out that we are not talking about a country the size of the United States, where there are thousands of miles between cities. We are talking about a fairly small island in which it is useful to find that economic resources and transport resources, of which airports are the key, are distributed to allow the development of our national assets.
I am not making political points, but it is important to note that there was unemployment of 5 per cent. in the constituency that I represented in 1979. Even with the adjustment of statistics, the rate is now between 20 and 30 per cent. We are talking about Manchester airport, which serves not just Bolton and the north-west, but is an international airport. There are 70,000 unemployed youngsters under 25 and another 20,000 youngsters on various schemes in the north-west. There is long-term unemployment of 100,000 in the same area. In the south there is unemployment of between 6 and 9 per cent., and perhaps around Stansted the rate is much lower—3 per cent. or so.
My argument concerns not simply the fact that the airports produce jobs, but the fact that an airport at Manchester provides the economic gateway to the region. What employer from Japan or elsewhere will establish a factory in a north-west town when he needs to fly to Heathrow and then drive up motorways for three or four hours? The north-west has lost many key manufacturing industries. When and if the economic revival comes, the airport will be the vital link and the lifeline by which we can regenerate economic activity.
Manchester airport is midway between Scotland and the south of England. A great deal of tourist trade can be


generated by air communications, and that is vital to the region's economy. In the past, Manchester airport has been actively discriminated against. The long-stay car park at Manchester charges £2·90 a day, while the charge at Stansted is virtually a few pence a day. I am told that, because of the Bermuda agreement, American carriers are not allowed to fly to Manchester airport.
We are asking for what the textile industry has requested under all previous Governments — fair competition. We do not make our request on a party basis — Labour, SDP or Liberal. It seems that SDP and Liberal Members cannot find time to attend the debate. We ask those who have an interest in the north-west region to support its key airport. If a third airport is created, it should be created in an area that will serve not only the north-west but virtually the north of England. We have a right to say to the official minds, "Britain does not stop at Watford."

Mr. Tim Smith: Civilisation stops at Watford.

Mr. Young: It depends on the area from which one comes. Judging by the behaviour of some hon. Members, I should not have thought civilisation had even entered the south.
It is necessary to recognise that millions of north-west constituents will depend on Manchester airport, including the communications thereby provided. We need the support of the House — [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentlemen wish to have the Floor, I shall give them the opportunity to do so. It might be useful if they listened to the northern and not simply the southern point. We are talking about the north, and hon. Gentlemen would be courteous if they listened to our point of view.
We should recognise that many hon. Members, from all parties, are talking on behalf of their constituents who will need this link, and we hope that the vote will show the Minister that that link must be provided.

8 pm

Mr. Toby Jessel: The hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) has spoken with great force about the needs of his town and region. I will take up later the points that he made.
First, however, I should like to remind the House of the population statistics for the areas around Heathrow and Stansted. The Home Office figures, based on the 1981 census, show that within 10 miles of Heathrow there are 1,700,000 people. Within 10 miles of Stansted, there are 115,000 people — only one fourteenth as many. The large number of people living around Heathrow are just as sensitive to the quality of their life and surroundings as anyone else. I include my constituents in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton.
The House should not forget that five Members who represent constituencies near Heathrow are either Ministers or Whips, and, by convention, they do not speak on matters affecting other Departments — my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), for Putney (Mr. Mellor), for Esher (Mr. Mather), for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) and for Reading, West (Mr. Durant), who is in his place. My hon. Friends have made their views known in their own way, and no one should assume that if there are five fewer speakers from the Heathrow area the people living there are any less well represented.
The large population around Heathrow has been told time and again that it is Conservative Government policy not to build a fifth terminal at Heathrow, and it has believed it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) quoted eight instances of statements by Ministers in the present Government to that effect. I can add another. On 4 August 1981, when he was Secretary of State, the Leader of the House wrote to me on this point. He said:
In his letter to you on 13 November 1980, which was issued as a Press Notice by my Department, Norman Tebbit, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade, confirmed that the Government's view remained unchanged; and in reply to a Parliamentary Question by Kenneth Carlisle on 13 May 1981, I re-affirmed the Government's view that a fifth terminal at Heathrow should not be provided. I do not think this can leave you in any doubt about the Government's view on this matter.
Those repeated statements of policy have come to be seen as amounting virtually to pledges. There will be a great sense of betrayal in constituencies around Heathrow if a fifth terminal is built. Those who want the pledges abandoned are saying that the opinion of a planning inspector who is no more than an adviser — albeit a distinguished adviser — should carry more weight than the commitment and good name of a Conservative Government.
The previous inspector, Mr. Justice Glidewell, was just as eminent as Mr. Eyre if not more so. He reported on the Heathrow fourth terminal with great distinction and took exactly the opposite view. He said:
it is in my view essential that, if they decide to permit Terminal Four, the Secretaries of State"—
The Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment—
should at the same time reiterate that it is the Government's policy that there will be neither a fifth terminal nor any major expansion at Heathrow".
That view was accepted by the Government. There is no reason whatever why the House should attach more weight to the opinions of Mr. Eyre than to those of Mr. Justice Glidewell.
The traffic aspect is extremely important. With three terminals open at Heathrow, the number of passengers there per year is 28 million or 29 million. When the fourth terminal opens later this year, it is expected that there will be 39 million passengers per year. If a fifth terminal were built, there would be 52 million — nearly double the present figure. That could mean an extra 60,000 or 70,000 passengers passing through Heathrow every day, with all the necessary back-up services. Eighty per cent. of passengers go to Heathrow by road and, however one may fiddle about with railway lines, that proportion is unlikely to drop substantially.
Most hon. Members are familiar with the A4, the Cromwell road, which leads through west London towards Heathrow. That road is already heavily congested, and not only at peak hours. The extra traffic for the fourth and fifth terminals would jam up the Cromwell road. Mr. Eyre had no adequate answer to that problem. The congestion would spread into parallel roads and, eventually, throughout west London.
There are already 750 flights a day through Heathrow. At times, a plane flies over my constituents every 1½ minutes. It is the frequency of the flights that distresses people, not merely the peak loudness of each flight. The assumptions made by the inspector and repeated by various statutory bodies are based on the noise and number index. I was glad to see from a letter that I received only


this morning from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport that the noise and number index and the formula for assessing the amount of aircraft noise is under review and that there will be a fresh report on it in April. The new report may render invalid some of the inspector's assumptions about the measurement of aircraft noise.
People in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies will not be content with a continuation of the present level of aircraft noise. They want a substantial and permanent reduction. The burden of aircraft noise must be shared more fairly. It is totally inequitable to pile more and more of a burden—whether the burden is in the form of traffic or of aircraft noise—on the 1·75 million people living around Heathrow in order to protect the far smaller population around Stansted. We should remember that, although I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) said, three out of four members of that population do not want that protection in any case. Even if we take those living within a 10-mile radius of Stansted rather than a 30-mile radius—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Jessel: A significant proportion of people within the 10-mile radius do not want protection.
Stansted is not virgin territory. There is a great fat runway two miles long there. That excellent runway is under-used. The excellent motorway connection between the M11 and the M25 and other good roads provides the capacity for a great deal more traffic. All those national assets are being under-used.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The situation is ludicrous. Neither Heathrow nor Stansted appears to want the extra facility, but Manchester is longing for it.

Mr. Jessel: The nub of the problem is that every year 3 million more people want to fly in and out of south-east England. The figure for this year is 47 million, not 45 million as has been said. The inspector calculated that the figure would rise to 61 million in five years and to 75 million in 10 years. He worked out that by 1990 there would be no more room at Heathrow and Gatwick for any more passengers. He also calculated that there is no way in which the fifth terminal at Heathrow could be opened before 1996.
It is only in the past few days that we have suddenly been told that there will be no need for a new waterworks. If so, why was not that point made during the inquiry? The case remains completely unproven. The inspector found that, because of the need to move the waterworks at Perry Oaks elsewhere, it would take 12 years to construct the fifth terminal at Heathrow. The fifth terminal at Heathrow, therefore, could not do the job in time. He concluded that only Stansted could provide the additional capacity to meet the demands during the early to mid-1990s.
The Manchester argument, about which we have heard a great deal and will no doubt hear a great deal more, sounds all right until we ask what it means. It means that someone who lives in Twickenham, Eastbourne or Finchley who wants to take a holiday in Spain after 1990 will be told "Sorry chum, you cannot go through Heathrow or Gatwick because there is no room for you. To get your

holiday in Spain you must go to Manchester". People will not stand for that. The same is true for incoming Americans who want to do their usual Tower of London and Stonehenge trip. Rather than come through Manchester they will go to some other country—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's 10 minutes have come to an end.

Mr. Graham Bright: This debate is crucial to my constituents. Since 1979, we have had to live with the possibility of Luton airport having to be closed if there is major development at Stansted. That would mean the loss of more than 7,000 jobs and the closure of the second largest business in my constituency. I do not know of any other right hon. or hon. Member who is faced with such a prospect. My sentiments are shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). The prospect is utterly unacceptable to us.
It is ironic that the threat of closure should ever have hung over Luton. The discussion about the siting of London's third airport ignores the fact that Luton is already the third airport in the capital's system. With 2 million passengers a year now, a capacity to take up to 5 million passengers a year, excellent motorway connections and an adjoining railway line to London — it is much closer than Stansted and takes only 30 minutes—Luton airport is perfectly capable of playing a greater role, especially in scheduled services. Indeed, we would welcome the opportunity that a longer runway and parallel taxiways would give us to expand our passenger handling capacity to 10 million — double the present capacity. That would involve taking only 100 acres of land. That is an option which would increase the capacity and the flexibility of the London system and remove pressure for the development of Stansted.
The recent problems of Luton airport have not been confined to the threat of closure. It has faced difficulties because of the existence of heavily subsidised facilities and charges at Stansted which are, of course, designed to attract our charter traffic away. The BAA has used its monopoly at Heathrow and Gatwick to squeeze out competition from Luton. That casts serious doubt on the BAA's claim to be the guardian of the national interest in airport matters, especially when its justification for developing Stansted is supposed to be the need to meet international competition. If it is not prepared to meet competition fairly at home, the claim is bogus.
For that reason, I am not prepared to go the whole way with the inspector, Mr. Eyre, at the recent planning inquiry in blaming successive Governments for the difficult problems that we now face. Any Government must take into consideration the views of their supporters, the environmental lobby, transport interests and many other factors.
Mr. Eyre has overlooked the pressure that a major public sector monopoly, the BAA, can bring to bear on policymakers in the long term by its insistence on the need to cater for passenger growth. It has an overwhelming interest in buttressing its own position. Hence the unremitting pressure since 1965 for the development of Stansted, the difficulty in developing a coherent strategy for regional airports and the BAA's efforts to take over Luton and the major regional airports in the 1970s and,


now, to preserve its monopoly. Until it is broken up and its component parts are sold to the private sector within an appropriate regulatory scheme, such conflicts will have to be resolved politically rather than settled in the market.
I do not believe that either the BAA or the inspector has made out a convincing case for the instant development of Stansted. According to Mr. Eyre's figures, he expects 61 million passengers to pass through London's airports each year by 1990, but his assessment of the passenger capacities of the existing planned and committed London airports system for that year is 63·5 million passengers. That might well be an underestimate as Heathrow, with a capacity of 38 million passengers a year, Gatwick, with a capacity of 25 million passengers a year, and Luton and Stansted combined, with a capacity of 9 million passengers a year — with the expansion of Luton it would obviously be greater—there would be an overall capacity of 72 million passengers a year. We shall have the capacity to handle the anticipated level of passenger traffic in 1990 irrespective of whether we decide to develop Stansted now. It is entirely wrong to suggest that Stansted is the only choice that will meet the demands of the 1990s in time.
The public inquiry has reinforced the argument for the development of a fifth terminal at Heathrow. The Perry Oaks site is clearly more suitable for airport development than any other location in the south-east and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom. The inspector believes that it is better from an operational point of view than terminal 4 and its development would prevent the imposition of the costs of split-site operations in our domestic airlines. British Airways says that its costs would rise by one fifth if Stansted were developed. There would also be a chance of relieving pressure on the central terminal area and the main access roads and tunnels into the airport. As heathrow is the hub of our international air services network, and as the development of the airport to full potential offers major operational savings to the airlines, a fifth terminal is the logical solution for the south-east.
Growth in the south-east, whether at Heathrow, Gatwick or Luton, is not the entire answer. Regional airports such as Manchester and others in Scotland have reached, or are reaching, critical stages in the development of their services. They have catchment areas and unutilised capacity sufficient to handle far greater numbers of passengers. The existence of the BAA in its current form must not be an obstacle to their development. It will be no service to Britain to reinforce the BAA's grip on our airport policies by promoting the growth of Stansted. Luton is ready, able and willing to play its part, with a fifth terminal at Heathrow, in coping with passenger growth in the south-east for the foreseeable future. It makes sense to expand our existing airports and to avoid artificial commitments on air traffic movements and terminal development of the disastrous kind that were made in the 1978 White Paper. Moreover, ignoring the potential of our regional airports will not be acceptable any longer.
There is no profit in looking back at the past 20 years of confusion and missed opportunities. Now is the time for new policies and, if possible, a new consensus. Nobody in north-west Essex wants major development at Stansted. However, such expansion is possible at Heathrow, Luton, in the regions and in Scotland. The only body with a real interest in developing Stansted is the BAA. It is that body, and the project that it has conceived, that should disappear in the interests of the whole nation.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I found it rather entertaining to hear the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) trying to shove passengers off from Heathrow to Stansted as there are obviously many people in the south-east of England who want further development at neither Heathrow nor Stansted. In the north, however, we would give our right arm just to have the opportunity to expand regional airports, the survival of which might be put at grave risk if the Government's weight is put behind the Stansted proposal.
When the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) extolled the virtues of Maplin as a third London airport, partly because it was by the sea, I smiled wryly because Liverpool airport is by the sea and has many of the virtues to which he referred. The hon. Gentleman talked about not coercing people to use such an airport. The hon. Member for Twickenham revealed yet again the gap between the imaginations of those who live in the south and those who live in the north when he said that his constituents could not be forced to go to Manchester or other northern airports to go on holiday or travel on business. I have news for him. That is precisely the problem that people who reside in the north of England face.
A person who lives in Liverpool and wishes to go on a summer holiday to a foreign land can fly direct only to Yugoslavia, thanks mainly to the drive of Merseyside county council. If he wishes to go to Spain, he may get a flight from Manchester. But the weight and balance of airport development is tipped towards the south. Those of us who live in the north must drive to Luton or get the train to Heathrow or Gatwick. That is part of the problem of living in the north of England, but many people in the south are unready or unable to recognise it. The expansion of Stansted will endanger the role of Manchester and the complementary airport of Liverpool.
The airport of Liverpool is already threatened by the plans to abolish Merseyside county council. No one has made it clear whether any authority will be capable of assuming that responsibility when the council is abolished. Far from getting a second terminal, Liverpool airport has recently managed to get a grant of £1·9 million — that shows at least some commitment on the part of the Government — towards building a new replacement terminal. We would love to be able to say that we were building a second terminal.
My constituency is in a county which has an average unemployment rate of more than 20 per cent. One third of the 150,000 unemployed have been without a job for well over a year, and often for well over two years. Therefore, we would welcome another terminal. However, we cannot even get a duty-free shop at Liverpool airport because of the arbitrary qualifying quota of 100,000 international passengers laid down by the Government. Yet many passengers who travel from Liverpool airport are international passengers, who must take an internal flight from Liverpool to Heathrow or Gatwick to pick up an international flight.
Many decisions are taken by the Government and their advisers whose roots are in the south. Not everyone needs or desires to start a journey from London airport. Airports such as Liverpool could handle a greater volume of traffic. Liverpool airport has one of the most up-to-date runways in the country, which has even taken Concorde. The drive


of Merseyside county council has led to the development of a new control tower, modern fire-fighting facilities and the beginnings of the development of a new replacement terminal. Flights go out and come in over the river, which is a safe route. Liverpool airport is more often fog-free than most airports in the United Kingdom, and is an ideal diversionary airport for Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow.
Manchester airport is connected to an excellent motorway system, which includes the M56, M53, M57, M62 and M6. It is an ideal site for development, providing the Government create the balance more in favour of the distressed parts of the United Kingdom, that is, the north-west.
I plead with the Government to consider the position carefully and to examine what is happening in the House tonight. The only reason why the Government have not called a three-line Whip tonight is that they realise they they are not satisfying the House with their proposals to expand Stansted and Heathrow, which totally ignore the needs of the north-west and the northern regions.
If the Conservative party wants to confirm the view of many people that it is fast becoming the south of England nationalist party, it should continue with its present trends. If it wants to expand and ensure that areas such as Merseyside get their fair due, it should consider Manchester and Liverpool airports. There is no use talking about regional policy while cutting regional aid. In Merseyside the six local authorities have suffered a cut of £176 million since 1979. That cannot be allowed to continue.
The Government can show faith with people in the north-west by not supporting further development in the London area. They should see to it that Manchester gets its fair rewards. They should consider the disadvantages that at present accrue to Manchester, and consider regional complementary airports such as Liverpool. Such a move would introduce much investment and economic activity in that deprived area.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) made a staunch and eloquent defence of the interests of his constituents, as I would expect. I do not doubt the fervour with which he and other hon. Members have put the case for the expansion of regional airports to serve the economic interests of their areas.
The demands of those regions are persuasive, and the environmental and economic interests of the hon. Members who represent seats most closely affected by prospective development in the south-east are understandable. Although I cannot claim to have as direct a constituency interest as them, I hope to display more objectivity and less emotion.
I, like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, have read the report with care. I am bound to declare my credentials at the beginning, which are that I broadly support the recommendations of the Eyre report. I hope that my views and those of other hon. Members present in the Chamber will be taken fully into account by Ministers.
When the subject was first raised about 20 years ago, there were projections for air transport growth which have not been fully realised. Nevertheless, there have been

great opportunity costs from not making the essential decision at that time about the development of a third London airport. It is ironic that since Sir Peter Masefield first espoused the case for a third London airport at Stansted we have gone full circle via Wing and Maplin back to Stansted, and now face the same decision 20 years later.
Did we serve the national interest by failing to grasp the nettle, prickly though it was, during those years? Has not the time come to make a clear and final decision? There must be no more prevarication. The people, regions, towns and communities involved are entitled to expect a clear and final decision. That decision should be the one set out in the Eyre report.
Too often we assess the future capital cost of such a decision, but fail to take account of the cost incurred through failing to take a decision earlier. A heavy responsiblity rests with a succession of Ministers with responsibility for trade and aviation, who have not served the country well by failing to make a decision on this highly sensitive, political, judgmental issue. Nevertheless, such a decision can now be made and it should be for a major expansion of Stansted airport.
There has been far too much talk this afternoon about the alternative advantages of meeting, by a minimalist approach, the least possible forecast movements of air transport. There has been insufficient desire to satisfy fairly empirically verifiable and objective judgments as to what passenger transport demands will be in the south-east over the next 15 to 20 years.
It is self-evident, from careful reading of the report, that there is no alternative to the development of Stansted. Much as one might like to see the demand-led expansion of some regional airports, the hard fact is that while certain improvemens can be made, and some new routes can and should be opened — I hope that will happen — consumer demand, both internationally and domestically, will remain predominantly in the south-east.

Mr. Churchill: rose—

Mr. Nelson: Like others, I have waited to make my speech. I have a limited time to make my points and I wish to conclude my remarks.
From my reading of the report, such a demand will be prevalent. It behoves the Government to respond and the recommendations in the report, in particular for the expansion of Stansted, will in my view satisfy this.
However, I link with that the importance that I place on the need not to make any concessions or to fudge judgments in responding to the report. In their eventual response to the inspector's report, the Government will be heavily tempted to try to satisfy, for political and other motives, all the fair points of view which have been represented. I shall judge the Government's response by the extent to which they genuinely take the opportunity to do objectively what they consider is in the national interest, and not to dilute an essential decision which should be made for the future.
Although Heathrow, Gatwick and other areas have been developed in the past, they have been developed too slowly and in such a manner as already to lose a substantial amount of business and traffic to elsewhere in the world. No one can assess the value and extent of business that we have already lost to Paris, Amsterdam and elsewhere in terms of passenger movements, freight and the associated


business. However, I believe that the cost to Britain has been enormous. That is the cost of failing to make decisions 20 years ago and in the intervening period.
We must have hope for the future. We must not proceed on the most pessimistic assumptions about economic growth and the attractions of Britain both for business and tourism. We should proceed on the basis that we will make new facilities work and that they will attract new business to Britain through Stansted and elsewhere. Therefore, not only should there be a firm Government resolution and decision in favour of the Eyre report, but it must not be watered down.
There will inevitably be behind-the-scene bids for a Government response to suggest a phasing of any increase at Stansted, for a limit on the number of passengers who can be dealt with and for an absolute guarantee that the capacity will not increase beyond a given level in the foreseeable future. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will resist these overtures to the extent that they have taken note of my remarks, although I recognise that it is a matter of judgment. I believe that I have made my point. I want the report to be implemented and I want no watering down of its recommendations.
I am not on my own. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said earlier. Much of what T have said in support of Stansted rests on the efficacy of the rail link with London and it is essential that that is not intermittent but is a direct through link.
With those remarks, I hope that I have left no doubt in my right hon. and hon. Friends' minds as to my views on the issue.

Sir Walter Clegg: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). It is particularly galling to those of us from the north to find that when we are forced to take flights from Heathrow or Gatwick we are supposed to be starting our flights from the south-east and are south-east originated. We are nothing of the sort. We are forced there by a set of circumstances.
One of the penances of debating in the House of Commons is to hear speaker after speaker making one's points infinitely better. Many powerful voices have spoken for the north of England tonight. In particular, I want to take up one or two of the threads which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) pursued.
First, my hon. Friend talked about the feeling in the north. He said that it was something tangible, something that could be touched. I can back him up on that. The north has a chip on its shoulder, and I do not like that. At one time it was a nice sporting chip—one will have a better chance of playing for England if one plays at Lords than at Old Trafford or Headingley. But it has become worse than that.
As the circumstances have changed between the south and the north, I have become worried about the south-north feeling that is developing. I want to see it stopped. That is why we have heard that the North of England Regional Consortium covers all the old rivalries within the north and stretches from the Irish sea to the North sea, from the Solway to the Mersey, and from the Humber to the Tyne. All have united in opposing the development of

Stansted for the reasons which have been cogently given in the House tonight by those supporting the North of England Regional Consortium.
We sometimes misunderstand why there is the concentration of flights in the south-east. It is partly historical and partly due to the fact that the airlines have found it easier because of the cross-subsidisation of the southern airports which is not available in the north and which makes our landing charges higher.
I read something in the inspector's report which I found rather strange. He said:
Governments can do little to influence the entrenched pattern of air services which is inevitably governed by market forces.
It is nonsense to say that the Government cannot change that pattern. It is ludicrous that the market is referred to there as a free market when one thinks of the International Air Transport Association, the Bermuda 2 arrangement, the licensing restrictions and the communications between Government and Government.
My fear—it is shared by many of my hon. Friends in the north — is that the present position will be frozen into the system because expenditure on Stansted will make those airlines which operate from it wish it to work, and the wish will be father to the thought.
We do not want to play dog in the manger with the south of England. If it needs expansion for its own purposes, so be it, but I am implacably opposed to a major development at Stansted. My feet will take me into the appropriate Lobby tonight, and I shall not be alone.

Mr. Robert Litherland: Unlike hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I must confess that I am not an authority on airports. I have been impressed by the breadth of knowledge that has been expressed in the debate.
However, as a representative of an inner city area, I am an authority on deprivation. As a former member of the Manchester city council, although, regrettably, never on the airport committee, I am extremely proud of that airport. The alderman who cut the first sod of grass at Manchester airport had to have police protection against a volatile crowd who did not want the airport. There has been criticism in years gone by because of the imposition on the rates. But what a difference today! Today that airport is the dual jewel of the north: it makes contributions to the rates and a marvellous contribution to the region.
I was dismayed at the beginning of the debate when I listened to the south-east lobby. We have heard the Watford gap mentality coming through once or twice. The North of England Regional Consortium has been criticised for its role. Some of the arguments have put forward the old divide and rule idea of separating Manchester from the other regions. The consortium does not want a "beggar thy neighbour" mentality. We have regard for unemployment in the south-east. Arguments have been thrown at us about job creation. The 50 per cent. male unemployment rate in one part of my constituency should be compared with the level of unemployment in the south-east. In Greater Manchester about 70,000 of the under-25s are unemployed; 100,000 have been unemployed for over six months. That is deprivation.
The consortium has pointed out that comparative statistics on unemployment are well known and need not be rehearsed. There is a substantial difference between the



unemployment rates in Scotland, Wales, the north and the midlands and those prevailing in the south-east. The creation of further jobs in rural Essex and Hertfordshire will have no immediate beneficial effect on unemployment in other parts, including the south-east. The proposal to create a further 25,000 jobs in that area, where unemployment averages 6 and 9 per cent., is not a priority. Indeed, it is inconsistent with the Government's location decisions on such developments as the Nissan car factory, which, for a variety of reasons, was routed to the north-east. In regard to the disparity between the north and the south-east, average earnings are lower in Greater Manchester. The inner cities are at a disadvantage.
Objections are coming not just from Manchester. At the inaugural meeting of the North of England Regional Consortium three years ago there were people from all over the country, and there was support across the political spectrum, just as we have heard in this debate from the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). Local authorities and the tourist trade supported the chamber of commerce. They realised that the spin-off effect, if Stansted should be developed, would be to the disadvantage of the northern regions.
The consortium asks legitimate questions about resources. What effect will the reallocation of resources have on the capital expenditure plans for local authorities at a time of dwindling capital allocations? Who will fund the 17,000 new houses and all the infrastructure that will be required? Will it be the Manchesters, the Liverpools, the Sheffields or the Newcastles? The consortium points out that even inner areas of London will not be immune. So we have decaying urban areas badly in need of revitalisation which will be subsidising new towns in the south-east. The regional dimension has not been taken into consideration in the report. The question about priorities has never been put. Justification cannot be made for expenditure well in excess of £1 billion in the south-east at a time of cutback in public sector financing which will affect the north.
The inquiry has dwelt only on the development of airport facilities and has missed out completely the importance of the air transport industry. There are two important elements. Without question there is a need for wider consideration of the development of the air transport industry in the United Kingdom. Secondly, the decision taken ultimately by the Secretary of State must take account of the regional dimension. The spread of aid for the regions is very thin. Many regions are in dire need of revitalisation. This is an opportunity that should not be missed. This is only one aspect of regional policy.
There are further broader issues concerning major capital investment. In his evidence to the Stansted inquiry the leader of West Yorkshire metropolitan county council indicated that regional policy must take account of regional conditions, which are so bad that no national investment decisions should be taken without first considering the regional dimension. Therefore, it is not just a Manchester versus Stansted argument. Attention must be drawn to the neglect of the midlands, the north and Scotland. If Stansted is developed, if a fifth terminal is built at Heathrow, and if there is a Channel tunnel, this island will eventually sink, as has been forecast, because of the imbalance of being weighted down by the south-east

of England. There is a case for regional airports. Finance invested in the regional airports would act as a catalyst to revitalise and reinvigorate areas with tremendous human resources. To neglect them further would be a catastrophe.
At the Stansted inquiry, and throughout its case since, the consortium has argued that there is no need in purely air transport terms for a further major development in the south-east of England to meet south-eastern air transport needs. All the analyses show that an excessively high percentage of regional air travellers are currently forced to use airports in the south-east. If those travellers could be reallocated to services from local regional airports, expansion could take place in the regions and not in London.
The consortium has also argued that the effects of the reallocation would be to bring substantial economic and employment benefits to the regions. Such benefits are more than justified by the widening disparities in employment opportunity and social and economic conditions as between the south-eastern region and the remainder of the country. That is not to say that the consortium has ever failed to acknowledge equally dire problems which exist on a localised basis in parts of the Greater London conurbation, but merely to observe that in quantitative terms the scale of the problem elsewhere is greater. Like most of my hon. Friends, I appeal to as many as possible Conservative Members to support our campaign by joining us in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am genuinely sorry for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. He has as disparate a portfolio as the craggy-visaged, iron-watchchained Alderman Foodbotham, chairman of the Bradford tramways and fine arts committee in the old days, about which Peter Simple writes so eloquently. One day he is on the buses; the next day he is proposing a Bill to deal with London regional transport; the next day it is those confounded airports again. I am only glad that at least we have given him some respite from the Civil Aviation Bill. I am sure he is glad that we have, particularly if he studies the inspector's report. I hope that at the end of the debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will state clearly the Government's intentions with regard to that legislation. The unanimous verdict of all informed parties is that the artificial statutory limit of 275,000 air transport movements per year at Heathrow is totally unjustified. Moreover, taken annually, the 275,000 ATM limit will be exceeded this summer even before the fourth terminal comes into operation in the autumn. I hope that this matter can be laid to rest today.
Secondly, I hope that the Government will listen to the very wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), formerly a Minister responsible for these matters. In a powerful and succinct speech he emphasised that Heathrow is a major national asset. The inspector, too, made that point. There is no airport with a comparable range of international services anywhere in Europe and we would be foolish indeed not to maximise its potential. As Mr. Eyre pointed out, however, to do so we need—and have needed for many years — a fifth terminal on the Perry Oaks site. I hope that at the very least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will approve that planning application.
We are all conscious of the pressures in the western part of London. A necessary prerequisite for such a development is the construction of a motorway spur from the M25 to the fifth terminal, proper railway links to Feltham and Iver, an extension of the underground system to the fifth terminal and improvements to the M4 and the A4, as well as the trunking of the Hayes bypass to which my hon. Friend for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) will no doubt allude if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Many people are worried about the potential noise impact of such an increase in capacity at Heathrow, but we should not be too alarmed. The inspector sets out good figures to prove the point, as do British Airways, and they explain that the introduction of new noise regulations at the begining of next year for British-registered aircraft and at the begining of 1987 for most foreign-registered aircraft will mean that the noise nuisance, which is such a worry to many local residents, will diminish, even if the passenger throughput at Heathrow is dramatically expanded.

Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that it is not just the peak loudness of each flight but the frequency and number of flights — already 750 per day — which distresses so many people? I might also point out that the runways go east and west whereas my hon. Friend's constituency is to the north of Heathrow—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes and he is now trying to nick someone else's.

Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that intervention was really worthy of my hon. Friend. I have always supported full use of Heathrow, just as I supported the full use of regional airports when I represented the constituency of Bradford, West. I still support the expansion of regional airports. The expansion of Heathrow should be seen as part of an overall strategy. It has not been made sufficiently clear in the debate that the future of many regional airports is directly tied up with the future of Heathrow. The feeder services which run from the regional airports into Heathrow to interline with international services are vital to the survival of many of the regional airports. I think that the inspector is broadly right when he says that there is only marginal potential for alleviation of demand through the expansion of regional airports. That is not to say that the regional airport expansion should not take place. There is a manifest case for it on grounds of regional development and equity, on economic grounds and on air transport grounds, but we should not delude ourselves that it will make all that much difference.
For all those reasons, I believe that from about 1995 we shall need a further expansion of the fifth terminal across the western perimeter road to the ground now covered with market gardens. I believe that is the most sensible strategy. Forecasts must always allow a margin for error. The inspector has made very generous allowance for error. His projection is way above the mean between the lowest and highest estimates of future demand. The CAA's own figures in document CAP 502 show that up to 1995, even with the present confines of Stansted, the additional demand that the inspector envisages for the south-east airports can be met. If Luton airport is developed up to 10 million passengers per year, as my hon. Friend the

Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) suggests, and if Heathrow is used to the full with a fifth terminal and 53 million passengers per year, it will be possible to meet the demand planning value given by the inspector for the year 2000 with Stansted handling only 5 million passengers per year.
Before we unnecessarily despoil the most beautiful countryside around Stansted I hope that we shall do everything possible to maximise the use of Heathrow. It is not beyond the wit of man to provide alternative sewerage facilities to those at the Perry Oaks site. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds was absolutely right about that. I believe that such an overall strategy could provide the basis for a consensus on which the Government, the Opposition and the country could unite. It is for this reason that I put it to the House. For this same reason, too, I am pleased that we are not making it a party matter in the Division Lobby. I believe that we should express the view that, with future demand projections so uncertain, it would be quite wrong to commit ourselves, in effect, to putting a Gatwick, with 15 million passengers per year, or, by the mid-1990s, the virtual equivalent of today's Heathrow, in the exquisite and unspoilt countryside of Essex. My hon. Friends and I believe that would be wrong and we shall seek to express the view in the Division today.

Mr. Churchill: The Secretary of State, in opening the debate, referred to the extreme delicacy of his position, a phrase which one can well appreciate from one who finds himself poised so awkwardly on the horns of a dilemma.
The House is invited tonight to give its verdict on the inspector's proposal for a massive expansion of Stansted and for a huge investment of resources in the south-east of England. Such a development in my belief is undesirable and unnecessary, and would represent a most un-cost-effective use of national resources.
The inspector betrays his own south-east bias in the concern which he expresses about the possibility that, were there to be major expansion of regional facilities, people from the south-east might conceivably have to go to Manchester to take an aeroplane, yet he takes little account of the plight with which so many northerners have been confronted and remain confronted and, if the inspector has his choice, will for ever more be confronted: that they have no choice when they want to go abroad but to interline via Heathrow or one of the European transit points.
Although Manchester is the greatest city in the United Kingdom outside the capital, there are no more than 20 foreign destinations to which one can fly direct from Manchester. On some of those flights there are restricted traffic rights and many of them are scheduled only one day a week.
What we in the north are battling against is the concept so admirably displayed by the latest British Caledonian advertisement which, for the benefit of those hon. Members who do not travel regularly through Manchester airport, I read:
Manchester—London—one stop—the world".
It is to this precisely that we in the north object. Why do we have to go via London in order to get to the world? Although I have the greatest respect for Sir Adam Thompson and for his admirable airline, which I use


regularly, the advertisement epitomises the problem with which we in the north-west are confronted, that we have to travel via London or one of the European Community countries to get anywhere.
This is an outdated syndrome which has been dead and buried for 15 years in the United States. There was a time — people have forgotten it — when one could not get anywhere in the United States without going via what used to be called Idlewild, now JFK. Anybody with any sense travelling now to a destination on the west coast, the south or the mid-west will go many miles out of his way to avoid the horrors of JFK and the eastern seaboard airfields.
Exactly the same attitude has developed among northerners who, although we recognise that at present we are forced to interline, will interline more regularly via foreign airports—Schiphol, Zurich, Charles de Gaulle—in order specifically to avoid Heathrow airport.
The huge numbers of passengers from the north have no choice at present. I was intrigued that the BAA should have let the cat out of the bag in its earlier propaganda for the debate which took place in the House before Christmas. It proudly paraded the fact that no less than 80 per cent. of the passengers coming through the London area airports wish to do business in London or the south-east. However, the flip side of that coin is that no less than 20 per cent. of passengers have no wish to go anywhere near the London area airports. The latest figures for 1984 show that the figures on which the inspector based his report are entirely outdated. At present it is not 20 per cent. who do not want to go near London area airports but 29 per cent., an increase of 45 per cent. on the figure on which the inspector based his decision.
Nearly 15 million travellers from the regions who have no wish to pass through London have to do so. That is the equivalent of the entire throughput of Gatwick airport. It is estimated that that 15 million will have increased to 25 million by the end of the decade. In consequence, the London area airports are unnecessarily congested. This in turn leads to demands and fatuous proposals such as we have had from the distinguished inspector, the only effect of which will be to aggravate the situation whereby northerners are unable to travel from their local airports and more and more people are encouraged to go through London. The extent to which people are interlining via other terminals might not be readily appreciated in London.
We have heard the suggestion that if we restrict growth at Stansted people will use other European airports. Many northerners are doing precisely that. Business men wanting to fly to Hong Kong from Manchester will go to Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Dublin or Paris to avoid Heathrow.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is it not hopeful that in the autumn people will be given the opportunity to fly direct to Hong Kong from Manchester with British Airways?

Mr. Churchill: Yes. I warmly welcome that. It is long overdue. At present people are more likely to use Swissair and travel via Zurich which gets them to Hong Kong two hours sooner than flying British Airways via Heathrow.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that, far from there not being the demand in the north-east or the north-west, in 1981 — thanks to Sir Freddie Laker — no fewer than 11 DC10s a week flew

between Manchester and the United States. Three flew to Los Angeles, four to Miami and four to New York city. Today there are no such flights.
I am delighted that British Airways is planning a three-times-a-week service as from the autumn this year. We shall then be served about one quarter as well as we were by Sir Freddie Laker's airline before he was done down.
I have three suggestions for my right hon. Friend. Will the Government develop positive policies to the maximum to ensure that regional demand is satisfied? That must mean a major expansion of Manchester and other regional airports, and abandoning plans for major developments at Stansted. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give the BAA its marching orders? Will he make it clear to it that the predatory pricing in which it is indulging at Stansted by subsidies from Heathrow and Gatwick is unacceptable? As an example I cite the cost of landing a jumbo jet at three airports. At Heathrow the cost is £4,930, at Manchester £3,908 and at Stansted £1,071 — barely one quarter of the economic charge that has to be made in Manchester. As a direct consequence Manchester has lost at least one regular far east freight flight. It has now gone to Stansted. The massive volume of freight which goes by road to London is ludicrous. Some goes on roll-on/roll-off ferries to Amsterdam and elsewhere. But half the freight delivered to Manchester airport is sent by road to Heathrow for onward transmission.
Finally, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he ought to reconsider the Bermuda 2 agreement and adopt a liberal policy towards foreign airlines. If need be, he should take British Airways and British Caledonian by the scruff of the neck and make it clear to them that their dog-in-the-manger attitude towards those who are seeking traffic rights out of Manchester and the regional airports must change. Those hon. Members who represent Manchester constituencies and constituencies elsewhere in the north of England will not accept what is believed to be an undesirable, unnecessary diversion of resources to a misconceived project in the south-east.
We demand that the Government should take full account of the case for Manchester. Until Manchester becomes the second international gateway of this country, I could not support any major development at Stansted.

Mr. Ken Eastham: Stansted has been an issue for many years. However, it is only during the last three or four years that it has come to a head. There is a strong belief, which cuts right across party lines, that the Stansted proposals will not benefit Britain in any way. We are referring not just to an airport but to the infrastructure that would be needed. Very considerable investment would be involved. Roads, sewers, rail services, houses, and schools would have to be provided, and they would cost many hundreds of millions of pounds. We believe that massive expenditure of this kind ought to be invested somewhere other than in the south, as is consistently the case. This should take place, not just because of the expenditure that would be involved, but because of massive unemployment in the north. In the Stansted area, unemployment stands at about 9 per cent., yet in the north-east and the north-west of England unemployment stands at over 40 per cent. Because of this massive unemployment, money ought to be invested in the north.
Ministers have attempted on previous occasions to convince hon. Members that there is no alternative to Stansted: that if Stansted is not developed the traffic will go to Schiphol. It is not a convincing argument. Hon. Members of all parties have been critical of the theory that people would rather cross the English channel, involving additional expense, and travel to Schiphol than go to an airport in the north of England. I represent a Manchester constituency but this is not a Manchester issue. Hon. Members who represent northern constituencies recognise the very great importance of investing in Manchester airport.
This campaign has continued for three years. It can be said unstintingly that hon. Members of all parties readily recognise that if Britain has very limited resources at least some of its investment ought to be directed towards the north. Manchester is a most successful airport. We ought to pay tribute to the pioneers of the past who had the foresight in a new venture to invest in the early 1930s. The airport is now highly successful and operates at a profit. We are not asking for a handout. We want common justice; the Government's resources should be spent in a different area and not always in the southern counties.
Non-political bodies strongly support Manchester's case. Chambers of trade and chambers of commerce—hard-headed business men — recognise the advantages for Britain of redirecting money to the north. They urge strongly that money should be invested in Manchester airport. We are not considering only the future of Manchester airport. The European Community recognises that some of this country's gravest problems occur in the northern areas. The Community would have sympathy with those who press that investment should be directed to the north. No Government can ignore the problem of the regions. Yorkshire, Newcastle, Greater Manchester and Liverpool face serious economic difficulties.
The Government continually say that they want to expand the service industries because they have the potential to create wealth and jobs. What better investment could there be than money to attract business to the north, which would help tourism, the hotel trade and the catering and food industries? The north has many cultural attractions which would be interesting to foreign visitors. Too often, tourists fly into London and never visit any other part of the country. London is always complaining that it is becoming overused and overheated because of the strain put on its resources.
The north has some of the finest countryside in the world, yet it is underused. It is a resource that costs nothing and it is there for the taking for tourists who fly into the north. I do not make a case for Manchester alone. People who flew into Manchester would not necessarily stay in the city. They would go to other nearby areas. The Lake District, for example, is one of the most beautiful areas in the world.
People in the north often feel great resentment when their area does not get its share of investment. The Government could do something positive and invest money in the north. I shall be supporting the north when I vote tonight.

Mr. Patrick Ground: I have both a constituency and a personal interest in the debate. My constituency is immediately to the east of Heathrow, under the flight path, and my personal interest is that for

six months I appeared at the airport inquiries representing the Greater London council — one of the comparatively few ventures in which the GLC supported declared Government policy.
A strand that has been picked up in many speeches is the case presented by the North of England Regional Consortium. There was a great deal of evidence given at the inquiries, which occupied the time of the inspector for about four years and about 250-odd working days at the inquiries. The evidence was examined in considerable detail by an inspector who declared himself to be basically sympathetic to the case being advanced. I must remind those who have relied upon the evidence that it was rejected by the inspector, who rejected also the criticisms of Government policy that were involved in the evidence. The inspector did not hesitate on many occasions to criticise Governments of both political colours. At page 28 of chapter 10 of the summary the inspector states:
Development of further services out of regional airports has not been hindered by any action or inaction on the part of Government which, in so far as it can influence the situation, is actively seeking to encourage the introduction of more services at airports in the regions.
That is a clear finding by the inspector that it is not Government action or inaction that has brought about the present position in respect of regional airports. He says that the solution lies principally in the hands of the air transport industry to recognise when demand appears in sufficient amounts at the airports. It is not that capacity which is lacking — indeed, many regional airports already have excess capacity. What is lacking is the perception of adequate demand on the part of the air transport industry.
One of the matters that has somewhat surprised me about the debate is the little amount of emphasis that has been placed upon runway capacity, which is one of the most important considerations for the Government in choosing between Stansted and a fifth terminal at Heathrow. At Heathrow, irrespective of whether the Government adhere to their intention to impose a limit on the number of air transport movements, the airport is now operating close to its capacity.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Ground: Approximately 275,000 air transport movements will take place at the airport this year.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Ground: The maximum capacity at present for practical purposes is between 300,000 and 305.000 air transport movements.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Ground: Therefore, there is a maximum, for practical purposes, of another 25,000 or 30,000 air transport movements with the present runway capacity. On the other hand, at Stansted — the figures that I have given are confirmed by the British Airports Authority—

Mr. Walker: rose—

Mr. Ground: —and they are close to the figures put out by the Civil Aviation Authority. Members may have their own calculations and no doubt anyone who is interested in the airport has his own calculation of runway capacity. The 1982 figures tell us that at Stansted, with the


existing runway, there were about 5,000 air transport movements. The finding of the inspector was that the capacity of the existing runway, with the development proposed of 15 million, would result in a capacity of no fewer than 165,000 movements.
In other words, there is that potential increase with the existing runway of 160,000 air transport movements. That must be a major consideration when contemplating an investment of several hundred million pounds, and the Government must have that important consideration in mind when making up their mind on the report.

Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the CAA's estimate is for 330,000 air transport movements capacity at Heathrow airport?

Mr. Ground: That figure was in the report this summer. The BAA estimate is for between 300,000 and 305,000. But even if my hon. Friend is right to refer to a capacity of 330,000, the extra runway capacity beyond the current use is limited. It is an additional 55,000 movements, which compares unfavourably with the additional capacity available at Stansted.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) to refer to special orders to remove the Perry Oaks works, but not many hon. Members would be enthusiastic about the prospect of Perry Oaks being located in their constituencies. Indeed, it would be a draconian step to allow a sewage works on the scale of Perry Oaks, one of the largest in the country, to be relocated in the green belt, in an hon. Member's constituency, without a public inquiry and the normal safeguards.
If hon. Members think it is difficult to find a site for an airport, they will know that it is equally difficult to find a site that is acceptable for a sludge works on this scale. Any hon. Member not aware of that would soon discover it if the proposal affected his area. There was more than a week's evidence on that issue at the inquiry and, having heard it all, I believe that the inspector's estimate—that it would not be completed until the mid-1990s—could be optimistic.
I regard it as fantastic for my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, after all the evidence has been given, to come forward with a quick solution. The fact that the project will take so long is plainly an important factor in the Secretary of State's eventual decision.
Two recommendations in the report involve a clear departure from Government promises — the proposal to abandon the 275,000 movement limit and the recommendation of the eventual construction of the fifth terminal—though I will not go in detail over the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) and others who referred to Government promises about both those matters. The Government would commit a major breach of faith if they acccepted either of these recommendations.
A fundamental point behind the inspector's recommendations is the fact that there is a need to maximise existing investment at Heathrow. I remind the Government that the last and largest investment at Heathrow — the construction of terminal 4 — occurred in the full knowledge that there would be a 275,000 limit and that, on completion, no fifth terminal would be permitted. That was the basis on which that major investment occurred. I

suggest that those who are responsible cannot in fairness now complain of the need to maximise their investment or previous investment further.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Ground: I must continue, because of the time.
The belief that people living under the flight path could not distinguish between 275,000 movements and 300,000 or more movements is one basis of the inspector's decision. Last week I told a meeting of my constituents that the inspector thought that they could not tell the difference between the 275,000 and 300,000 movements, and they were incredulous. They said, "Where does the inspector live?" When I said that he lived in Sussex, they thought that explained everything.
I assure the Government that the people living around Heathrow are extremely sensitive to changes in the method of operation of the airport and in the number of movements. I entirely support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). Further restrictions on night movement and a rail link would be welcomed, but one must emphasise for the people concerned the great importance of the effect of the number of movements. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham that the number of movements is one of the greatest irritants and nuisances to the people living around the airport and under the flight path.
The Government's promise to limit the number of movements and to restrict further development at Heathrow matters greatly to the people living around Heathrow who have relied upon that promise. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to follow a course of sensible investment by applying the criteria of runway capacity, to which I have referred, by looking at the practicalities of the matter in terms of timing and by respecting the Government's clear unequivocal pledges.

Mr. Cecil Franks: This debate is on one of those rare issues which, though controversial, cut right across party political loyalties. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on the way in which he presented the case not just for Manchester international airport but for the north. His speech was as good and balanced as the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was bad and unbalanced. To make a partisan political speech on a cross-party issue was an act of crass political ineptitude. The hon. Lady did her case and our case no service.
I declare an interest in this matter. I am one of three hon. Members — certainly the only Conservative Member — who have been members of the Manchester international airport committee. During the years before I became a Member I had the privilege of watching the growth of that airport and the pride of people in the north in that growth. That growth occurred not because of any Government direction or of any assistance from the British Airports Authority, British Airways or the Civil Aviation Authority — all of whom sought to thwart the development — but because of natural market forces. That reason should delight the hearts of Conservative Members.
One voice not yet heard in the debate is the voice of the consumer. The BAA pontificates about future demand and


tells us where the consumer will want to go. British Airways pontificates about where, in its opinion, the consumer wants to go. However, we have evidence of what consumers themselves want. Some consumers want to fly direct to London—to Heathrow. The solution is simple — build a fifth terminal. Many consumers, equally, want to fly to Manchester. That is evidenced by the growth of Manchester international airport. The solution again is simple — allow the airport to develop naturally. Some consumers may wish to fly to Stansted: so be it; allow Stansted to develop naturally. Why should Conservative hon. Members, of all people, be asked to deny natural market forces? That defies the logic upon which we were elected.
I am one of a fairly rare breed of politician. I am a Conservative Member from the north. A rarer politician is the Labour Member from the south. I say that, not to score some dubious or spurious point over Opposition Members, but to emphasise the fact that there is a north-south divide which grows wider and wider. The political and economic division of our country is something of which we in this House should feel ashamed.
We constantly hear, from some hon. Members on these Benches, reference to the philosophy of one nation. If we believe in that philosophy, it is time that we started to practise it. I often look with envy at my colleagues from Scotland and consider how much time they are given in which to fight for their case. I do not begrudge them that time. I look with equal envy upon my colleagues from Wales who can further their causes in a similar manner. All too often, in the early hours of the morning, I look with great annoyance and equal envy at those from Northern Ireland who are able to occupy the time of the House for hour after hour. The real Cinderella of the House is the north of England. Hon. Members representing the north lose out time and time again in the opportunities afforded us to present our case.
The solution to the problems of the airline industry in Great Britain is obvious. We propose to deregulate the bus industry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for promoting that policy. We deregulate this and deregulate that, but we neglect to deregulate fares, routes and licences in the airline industry.
The international airline passenger traffic is organised in a cosy cartel between national Governments and national airlines. The arrangement is just as much opposed to the interests of the consumer as is the rigging of oil prices by the member countries of OPEC. If we condemn OPEC for operating a cartel against the interests of the consumer, we should be just as vociferous in our criticism of the national airlines, which, to an equal extent, operate against the interests of the consumer. None is more guilty of that than British Airways. Its record is disgraceful.
About four weeks ago, I was abroad with a member of the Government. We travelled on a charter flight from Gatwick to Zurich and the return ticket cost £59·50. Because of urgent Government business, he had to fly back early on a scheduled flight. For a single ticket on a scheduled flight from Zurich to Gatwick he was charged £180. When that Minister complained to me, I could do no more than remind him that he is the Minister responsible for privatisation. Perhaps he will now practise what he preaches.
The House has been given many statistics, and I should like to give two more. One illustrates Manchester airport's natural growth in spite of the obstacles. There were 100

per cent. more charter flight passengers last year than five years ago. For the same period, there was only a 2 per cent. growth in the number of passengers on scheduled flights. Those statistics invite the question: why? The answer is obvious. Charter flights are unfettered by regulations while scheduled flights are at the whim of the CAA. It is virtually impossible for a scheduled airline to fly to Manchester, as is evidenced by British Airways' opposition to Singapore Airlines. United States airlines have met similar opposition because they are not part of the Bermuda agreement.
I give the second statistic to refute the spurious argument that everyone who flies to the United Kingdom wants to go to London. There is no evidence to substantiate that view. According to the British Tourist Board, 2·5 million United States citizens flew to London last year. One third of that number then visited the north. Why could they not fly to the north in the first place? I have not yet heard a sensible answer to that question except that there are vested interests determined not to be broken although that might be in the interests of consumers and the north.
At 12 midnight I shall go into the Division Lobby to register my opposition to the inspector's report If the Government believe in the free market, let there be a free market and a free vote in the House when we have to make a decision.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. and learned Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) was worried on two counts: first, that there are too many flights into Heathrow, and, secondly, that there is a problem associated with getting rid of the sewage works. May I inform him that the people of Greater Manchester are only too willing to have the extra flights but do not want the sewage works. The trouble is that the deal usually works out so that people in the north of England get the sewage works and others get the flights. We want a much better deal.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) might believe firmly in free market forces, but his choice of Manchester airport as an example was unfortunate. He should know from his service on Manchester city council that it was the enterprise of that council and more recently, the Greater Manchester council that did much to develop the airport. Almost all hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the north-west argued that we need more assistance from the Government if that airport is to develop and become more successful. The case for the north-west has been forcefully presented to the House, and I hope that the Minister will take note of it. I slightly regret the fact that there has not been as much emphasis in favour of pump-priming and development in other regions, such as the north-east, Yorkshire and Scotland.
Developments at Manchester airport have done a great deal to increase job opportunities both in services provided at the airport and in firms, which realise that by setting up offices and service depots in the Greater Manchester area they have access to the whole of western Europe. In my constituency several firms are now able to serve the whole of western Europe from a base in Tameside or Stockport. Such places are probably as efficient as any others in the United Kingdom and, probably, in Europe. I hope that the Government will do all they can to encourage that development.
The time spent at an airport is extremely important for firms which are sending out service engineers or spare parts. The speed with which people and equipment can be handled through Manchester airport is impressive. One cannot begin to compare the speed of arriving at Manchester airport, hiring a car and reaching the motorway with the problems at Heathrow. It is much faster via Manchester.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said that there was no sense in encouraging people to fly from Manchester to Heathrow and then to a European destination, and that the sensible thing was to make it possible for them to fly directly from Manchester to an increasing number of European destinations. The slowness of progress through Heathrow means that most regular travellers to Europe from Manchester prefer to change anywhere but at Heathrow. Therefore, it is in our interests to give people the opportunity to fly directly to their destinations rather than to interline somewhere else in Europe.
Heathrow will not be able to meet the needs of travellers to interline at Heathrow. The more terminals, the longer one will spend moving from one to another. Regular travellers find the time spent moving round an airport particularly frustrating. There are now sufficient people in the north-west who want to fly direct to European destinations. The Government should give every encouragement to getting direct flights from Manchester to those destinations. They should not insist that people take the shuttle to Heathrow.
One of the major problems for Manchester airport is that many people do not appreciate how easy it is to reach it. It annoys me when I wait at the airport to hear people expressing surprise about how easy it was to reach the airport. From most of the northern part of Britain it is easier to reach Manchester than Heathrow. It is sad that so many people still assume that Heathrow is easier to reach than Manchester.
A rail link into Manchester airport would break that psychological barrier and improve communications further. As the railway is within two miles of the airport, it is scandulous that the Government have provided money to develop rail links and improve communications to all the southern airports but not for the rail link to Manchester airport. I say firmly to the Minister that if he wants to convince people in the north of England that he believes in Manchester airport he must make sure that money is available for the rail link.
I have a slight fear that British Rail's heart is not fully in that rail link because it still sees itself in competition with the airlines for travel to London. Certainly the most recent British Rail advertising campaign is an attack on the shuttle service. That is shortsighted of British Rail. If it were to encourage the link by putting up the money or getting the Government to do so, more people would want to use the railway into Manchester and it would gain more passengers than it would lose to the shuttle service.
I hope that the Minister will listen to the voices that have been raised in the House today arguing that money should be spent in the regions rather than in the south-east. In particular, the Government should put up the money quickly for the rail link into Manchester airport.

Mr. John Whitfield: We have heard many interesting speeches tonight, many of them expressing sectional interests of one sort or another, but my heart bled when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) complaining about the likely effects on the quality of life of his constituents of the establishment of a fifth terminal at London airport.
Twickenham has the jobs and the money that the airport provides. The people there are lucky enough to live in the M4 corridor, which is often referred to as the golden triangle of the nation. They have the convenience of a major airport on their doorstep. I understand that the value of houses in Barnes and Richmond is as high as anywhere in London. Yet my hon. Friend comes to the House and says that we must worry about the quality of life of his constituents.
My hon. Friend's constituents are a little naive if, living on the borders of the world's No. 1 international airport, they think that that airport will not be jealous of that position and seek to maintain it. I hope that I may be forgiven for saying that they are also somewhat naive if they believe the solemn and binding undertakings of politicians.
I had intended to say quite a bit this evening about the British Airports Authority, but scorn has been poured on its head from both sides of the House and it ill-behoves me to add to it. However, let me urge on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a point relating to the cross-subsidisation which is practised between Heathrow and Stansted. My right hon. Friend will soon be urging upon the House legislation on buses, which I for one completely support. We shall hear many arguments from the Government Benches about the evils of cross-subsidisation. I see no reason why the same principle should not apply in the aircraft industry as in the bus industry.
Until my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) spoke in his forthright manner, little had been said about tourism. There are many tourists in London. If we are to worry about the qualities of life, one should remember that those qualities are considerably eroded for at least nine months of the year in London. The number of tourists in the city and around about, particularly in the city of Westminster, amount to a public nuisance. The hotels are full and the theatres are packed, often with philistines who do not know the difference between a good play and a bad one. We have already heard that one third of the people who are forced to fly to the south-east have no desire to visit it. If we have to suffer the blue rinse route—I know that there are currency and other advantages to be obtained from it — there is no reason why it should not start at Manchester rather than at Stansted or Heathrow.
The regional tourist boards are well equipped to cope with any number of tourists. My own regional tourist board, Yorkshire and Humberside, has produced a magnificent brochure, which I have just read. It has almost persuaded me to take my holidays in Yorkshire, which I have not done for a long time. If it has that effect on me, surely it could lure tourists from the North American continent to the north of England. Surely they could be persuaded to visit York minster just as easily as they could be persuaded to visit Westminster; the Castle museum in York is just as much of an attraction as the British museum


and the Humber bridge as Tower bridge. Many American tourists have already done London once. Statistics show that they are spending less and less time in London.
I am surprised that so little reference has been made in the debate to the position paper which British Airways issued on 15 January. It is clear from appendices A and B of that document that British Airways itself has many reservations about Stansted. I shall not waste the time of the House by reading quotations from that paper, but I urge my right hon. Friend to study it, if he has not already done so. It is clear from the document that British Airways, our major flag carrier, is reluctant to use Stansted and believes that if the regional airports, Heathrow and Gatwick, were properly utilised, the need for Stansted would be at the very least a buffer, a contingency to fall back on.
As always, it is the convenience of the indigenous air traveller which seems to be the last consideration in matters such as this. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend say when opening the debate that airports and air travel should serve the public. I urge him to remember that it is the public who live in this country who are to be served. The principal objective of the British Airports Authority should not simply be to launder the international air traffic which passes through London airport. That must be a secondary consideration.
My right hon. Friend should not turn his back on the north. He should resist the self-interested representations of the institutions of the airline industry. Any further concentration of charter air travel in the south-east will be extremely divisive. There is no overwhelming evidence of a need to develop Stansted. The airlines themselves are reluctant to go there. Regional airports can and should take up any excess demand. The fact that Mr. Graham Eyre, about whom many kind things have been said today, says in a rather pompous manner that the regional airports should not help out with the problem in the south-east is abominable. It shows the southern bias of the man, and we have heard that he lives in Sussex. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] It is not disgraceful.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to think very carefully before committing large amounts of unproductive Government expenditure to developing Stansted. If following my advice and the advice of so many other hon. Members means that Mr. Graham Eyre occasionally has to travel to Manchester to take an international flight, so much the better—it may broaden the man's mind.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Having been straining at the leash for some time, I am grateful for being released from the starting gate—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock. — [Mr. Sainsbury.]

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Thompson: I wish to support my hon. Friends the Members for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) and for

Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and the many others who have spoken so ably against any significant expansion of Stansted airport. My views on this are coloured by three factors, which do not include my recent experience as a member of the Standing Committee on the Civil Aviation Bill. My boyhood was spent in north Essex, my early career was spent in the north of England, where I also stood as a parliamentary candidate, and I now represent a more northern and remote part of East Anglia.
My experience as a boy in Essex can be summed up very briefly. I was brought up in an area that includes not just Stansted but Thaxted and Finchingfield, which is regarded as the most beautiful village in Essex. It is quite wrong that anyone should ever have considered a major expansion of Stansted airport, because the case against such a development in that area is extremely strong on environmental grounds alone. It is amazing that the matter should have been under debate for so long. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said today that we must make a decision very quickly. Labour Ministers said the same in 1965. Why has no decision been taken in 20 years? It is because Stansted is the wrong place for such an expansion and the wrong place for a third London airport.
I also have strong links with the north of England and am glad to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) and of Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who rightly pointed out the real and increasing divide between north and south. They should recognise, however, that this serious problem results from wrong decisions by Labour Governments as well as more recent decisions which they seek to criticise. Any opportunity consistent with the Government's economic strategy, which I support, to redress that imbalance between north and south must be grasped eagerly.
I have not tangled very deeply with the inspector's report, but I note that he refers to the North of England Regional Consortium as a leap of faith, but it is clear from the report that any decision to expand Stansted would be an even greater and more suspect leap of faith, especially in view of the environmental implications and the urgent need for improved communications in the area to make such a development possible at all.
Once a week I travel up the Whitechapel road, the M11 and—I hesitate to mention this again in the presence of the Secretary of State for Transport — the A11 to Norfolk. I am being given signals to get off the subject quickly. Those of us who drive up the Whitechapel road, through Leytonstone and up the M11, realise what foolishness it would be to have a large London airport sitting next door to the M11. As the Member of Parliament for Norwich, North—and I have an interest to declare because Norwich airport is situated in my constituency—I have to consider this matter in any judgment that I may wish to make in a debate.
In fairness, I should point out that in Norfolk there are mixed views on the question of Stansted airport. I know that it is the policy of Norwich city council and of Norfolk county council to oppose in principle any large-scale development of Stansted airport. They wish, rightly, to encourage the development of Norwich airport to serve the needs of the region. In my view, this must mean modest development for Norwich airport with a view to encouraging further business and tourism activity in


Norfolk and East Anglia generally. This will surely help to preserve and increase job opportunities not only in my constituency but in neighbouring Norfolk constituencies.
To take just one example from my constituency, many people in Norwich are employed by the airline Air U.K. Ltd. I have their interests very much in mind when I come to any judgment in the debate.
I appreciate that the Government and the Secretary of State have in mind the encouragement and development of regional airports such as Norwich. The nub of the case that we are considering surely is that the inspector in his summary says:
The growth of passenger demand will continue into the foreseeable future. In so far as that demand arises in the south east, it should be met by the provision of additional capacity within the region.
With respect, I regard that as a non sequitur if ever there was one. As an ex-schoolmaster, I know that the demand for entry into Oxford university — or perhaps I should say Cambridge university tonight — is ever-increasing, but it does not follow that everybody will go to that university.
The Stansted question has gone on for far too long. We have all been subjected to an endless flow of statistics, circulars and so on. I believe that we must encourage increased activity and prosperity where there is room and people want it. If we change the rules by defeating the Stansted idea once and for all, the market will adapt and there will be benefit for all the regions.
Today we have a chance to end the pressure for Stansted that has been going on for 30 or more years and the pressure for ever more development in the south-east at the expense of the north. We have the opportunity to end the pressure for any south-east inland airport which will be to the detriment of people who live in these areas. We know, and have heard tonight repeatedly, that the case for Stansted expansion is weak. We know that it is wrong. Let us take this chance to make that clear once and for all.

Mr. Michael Foot: I have great sympathy with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) and I shall do my best to respond to it briefly because I believe that, especially in his latter remarks, he made an appeal to the House that we should consider carefully.
I believe that any hon. Member who participates in a debate should do his best to listen to the speeches that are made from the Government and Opposition Front Benches at the beginning of the debate. I have followed this rule in almost every debate in the House in which I have participated. It so happens that I did not hear the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) or the Minister, for which I apologise. [Interruption] If hon. Members listened, they would understand why I wish to intervene. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would not have called me if I were not entitled to take part. All hon. Members, if they possibly can, should listen to the opening speeches from both sides of the House. I say to Government Members, who apparently are irritated that anyone from the Opposition should speak in such terms, that I have participated in more debates on these matters than—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foot: We had a debate on Stansted in 1968 or 1969 in which I participated and on which we voted. The Labour Government were proposing to proceed to build an airport at Stansted, although their proposal was tentative. The House was full and the vote was large. There were many differences of opinion and I was dubious about the case put from the Treasury Bench by Anthony Crosland on behalf of the Department of the Environment. As always, he made an extremely powerful case, but a few of us were not convinced by it. I have a strong recollection of the debates in the House on this subject. In that Parliament the Government majority was considerably narrower than it is today and therefore the way in which hon. Members voted was of more decisive consequence.
Not because of the failure of Anthony Crosland to present his case—he always did that well—but because of what I believed to be the de-merits of the case, I was not prepared to support the Labour Government on that occasion. I listened carefully to those who put the case against the extension of the airport at Stansted and I thought that their case was powerful. They have a powerful case today, which is why I intervene now.
I agree with the hon. Member for Norwich, North. I think that it would be valuable for the country as a whole if we could kill off here and now the whole idea of a large extension of Stansted. I shall be happy to vote to achieve that result at the end of our discussions, and I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will help to secure that result. Stan Newens, who knew the area well, would not vote for the Government, who were then supporting the idea of extending Stansted. I took the same view. One of the reasons why even so long ago we were so opposed to the proposition concerned, of what would happen to many towns and villages. If the plan for the expansion of Stansted had been carried through, it would have caused the wrecking of many communities.
Some hon. Members today have put their case strongly and I respect their case. Many towns and villages in Essex and elsewhere will be wrecked if the plan goes ahead. We have to be careful about doing that. I hate to vote for the wreckage of such communities. I only wish that some hon. Members who are so passionate in defending communities around Stansted were equally passionate in defending the communities around Abertillery and Ebbw Vale. Exactly the same kind of community spirit is involved.
I do not suppose that any hon. Member who tries to put the case against the Government's proposals will mock the community spirit of all the towns and villages that are to be found around Stansted. Those people are defending their communities. They cannot bear the idea of their communities being uprooted and wrecked unless it is for an absolutely paramount national purpose. The same community spirit exists in Abertillery, Blaenau, Nantyglo and all the towns and villages that contain mining communities. Perhaps some of those who so strongly defend the rights of the inhabitants of towns and communities in that part of England will also defend the rights of the inhabitants of communities that depend upon the mining industry.
So at least I am consistent. That is why, when the matter was posed some 20 years ago, I found it very difficult to go into the Lobby and say, "Let us vote for it, irrespective of the consequences for all those towns and villages". There is always a difficult and awkward balance to be struck. Some communities have to be uprooted and sacrificed to the national interest, but it ought to be done


with the utmost care and reticence. There have been reports by inspectors, it is true, but I have seen inspectors' reports that do not pay very much regard to these important considerations. I do not say that all of those important considerations are neglected. A balance has to be struck. However, if many communities around Stansted would be wrecked by this proposal, we ought to be very careful before we vote for it. I shall not vote for it. Communities around Heathrow could make claims, too, but not quite the same claims.
The reason for the disturbance in the House tonight is the different balance of community representation. If anybody jeered at me at the beginning of my speech for getting up to speak on the matter, I would say to them that I have spoken before on the matter and that I shall always examine the possibilities for preserving communities that are fighting for their rights. Those hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of such communities are doing just that. I do not believe that the hopes and the rights of those communities should be killed off by one vote tonight. That cannot be done. Indeed, so strong is the case against the extension of Stansted that if sufficient Conservative Members were to vote in the Aye Lobby with the Opposition the proposal would be killed off. That would be a good day not only for Stansted but for the House of Commons.
However, I read in the newspapers that the Government propose to deal with the matter in a very different way. A report in today's Financial Times—I am sure that all hon. Members agree that the Financial Times reporter is a most reliable political correspondent who tells the Government exactly what they are up to and what is going on—says:
The Government has ducked the threat of a Tory revolt and a probable defeat in the establishment of a third London airport at Stansted. It has instructed Ministers and their parliamentary private secretaries not to vote when the issue is debated in the Commons tonight; and has put its back-benchers on a one-line whip—a tacit encouragement to abstain.
To deal with the matter in such a fashion is to demean the House of Commons. The Government must face up to these questions sooner or later. Why do they not face up to them now? Many Opposition Members have for many years conducted a campaign for the north-west in order to sustain the claims of Manchester, and, as we have seen tonight, many Conservative Members have put that case strongly.
The Government submitted to the demands for a debate and underlined its importance by agreeing that we should

have an extra two hours so that more hon. Members could participate. For the Government then to say, "We shall make a mockery of the vote" is an insult not only to hon. Members who are interested in the subject but to the House. Adjournment debates are an important instrument for the House. Some of Parliament's most important debates have taken place on Adjournment motions. The Government have no right to say that they will not regard an Adjournment debate as a matter of importance and that Ministers will be told to stay away.
If the newspaper story is not true, I hope that it will be repudiated. The Minister who is to reply may tell us to wait and see how many Ministers vote. We shall count them. If all the Ministers vote—we know how obediently they turn up when they are required to do so—we shall know that the story is not true. However, if Ministers stay away, it will be a shameful treatment of the House by the Government and a special insult to hon. Members who have participated in the debate and pressed the case of their constituents with all the strength that they can.
It seems that some Conservative Members are irritated that I should be speaking in the debate. Apparently, they would rather debate the matter than win the issue. We would rather win the issue. We want to kill off Stansted. I was against it 20 years ago and I am against it now. If Conservative Members wish to assist us in killing off Stansted, they can vote with us, and if we achieve a substantial majority the Government will have to take account of what has been said.
If the Government try to pretend that the vote, which ever way it goes, is of no consequence, they will insult some Conservative Members, infringe the rules of the House and injure our possible ways of proceeding in the future. How can we have Adjournment debates if it is said that it does not matter which way they go?
Perhaps the most important parliamentary debate this century—the overthrow of the Chamberlain Government in 1940 — took place on an Adjournment motion. [Interruption.] I know that some hon. Members want to trivialise the debate and none more so than the Secretary of State for Transport, who will not last very long anyway. Any attempt by the Government to trivialise Adjournment debates will be injurious to the House. I invite all hon. Members who do not want to see the development of Stansted and want to uphold the rights of the House to vote with the official Opposition. That is the way to uphold the rights of the House.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is a great pleasure to be called to participate in the debate after the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is one of Parliament's great orators. I am sorry to say that on this occasion, as on others, the right hon. Gentleman allowed his emotions to overrun his appraisal of the mood of the House. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I happen to think that he is one of our distinguished parliamentarians. I am merely making the observation that, not for the first time, he has misjudged the mood of the House.
It is clear that the Eyre report is an important document. I believe that Mr. Graham Eyre has done Parliament and the country a great service by producing it. We have been given the opportunity to debate important and essential issues. There has been imput to the debate from almost every part of the country and I am delighted that I have been given the opportunity to make an imput to it from the most northern constituency that has featured in it.
No one can accuse me of having a direct interest in what is going on at Heathrow other than as a commuter from Scotland at least twice a week. However, I have an interest in aviation which I must declare at the outset. I have an interest in an airline company.
Airline companies respond to the needs of the market within operating restrictions, and it is the regulations that often present the problem. We have heard of the difficulties at Manchester airport, and I have intervened on one or two occasions to elicit some useful information. If we are to talk about free competition and the opportunity for customers to travel, we must examine the opportunities that are available to the airlines to provide a service. Unless the opportunities are open to the airlines, there is no prospect of them using our airports. On the other hand, if there are opportunities for the airlines because the regulations are so framed, we must consider why airlines do not want to operate out of certain airports. The usual reason is that the airlines are not convinced that it will be commercially viable for them to do so.
Observations have been made about charter operations and an attempt has been made to confuse them with scheduled operations. Scheduled flights have to be flown irrepective of whether the aircraft are full, whereas charter operators will not fly unless they have fully booked aircraft. That is the general pattern.
As a regular user of Heathrow airport, I recognise that Heathrow is the jewel in the crown of civil aviation in the United Kingdom. If we do not maximise the use of Heathrow airport, we are being foolish and doing a disservice to many of those who have spoken against development at Heathrow this evening. Unless Heathrow continues to meet the demands of the world's airlines and customers—that calls for giving them adequate facilities when they land because there is no point in having aircraft land there if the terminal facilities are inadequate and do not meet the needs of the customers — it will not prosper. I have believed for a long time that those who argue against the fifth terminal development have not taken on board the needs of the customers, and it is their needs that matter.
It is unfortunate that we have become bogged down in the air traffic movement limit, which I happen to believe is nonsensical. All the airlines would say that it is

nonsensical, as would the Civil Aviation Authority. There is plenty of scope for additional movements at Heathrow. It is true that at certain hours of the day the airfield is fully utilised, but at other times it is very much under-utilised. The answer lies in the slotting arrangements, which are made by the airlines. It is not known by many who debate these matters that it is the airlines which agree on which slot a particular airline will occupy.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the view of the airlines and the Heathrow scheduling committee that the airport's capacity is considerably more than 330,000 ATMs — nobody knows exactly — and that we should leave the airlines to come to a decision?

Mr. Walker: I agree. There is no doubt that the airlines and the national air traffic services which are responsible for the safe movement of aircraft agree that there is scope for additional ATMs at Heathrow. Of course, the prime consideration must be safety. That must be the only real consideration. Provided that it is safe to operate within certain limits, the maximum use should be made of Heathrow, the jewel in the crown.
There is scope at Gatwick for further development. It is wrong that we should be using the major runway there for commuter aircraft; there should be a commuter runway at Gatwick. I have been in small aircraft which have been stacked, waiting to come into Gatwick after heavier aircraft have landed, and that has been a frustrating experience. Let us develop Gatwick.
The whole Stansted issue must be considered sensibly and objectively. The runway and facilities are there and the terminal is coping with present demand. Stansted should be allowed to develop and evolve naturally, remembering that a substantial number of airlines want to go there. Hon. Members should note that the demand to use Stansted, particularly for charter operations, is increasing. That particularly applies to airlines from the eastern seaboard of the United States and elsewhere, and that interest should be allowed to develop.
Much has been said about Manchester airport, and I intervened earlier to refer to airlines which had authority to fly there but had not done so. At a given time in airline evolution, the economics may not make it practicable to use a licence to fly to an airport. We have lived through a period of intense difficulty when airlines, like everyone else, have had to face the economic problems resulting from the activities of the OPEC countries in the last 10 years.
As a result, there were times when airlines with licences did not use them because it would have stretched their liquidity to do so. That did not mean that scope did not exist for airlines to operate at those airports; simply that, at that time in their evolution, they did not have the capital to do so.
We are now entering a new era in airline and aviation activity and we should not look at the future in a blinkered way. Manchester airport has a great future and it should be a gateway to the north Atlantic and elsewhere.
It will not come as a surprise to hon. Members when I say that I am a great supporter of Prestwick. However, I shall not spend time tonight on that subject, other than to say that it is already a gateway. Those who ask why it is now coming back into use as a gateway should realise that that is happening because of the changing fortunes of the airlines. Things are improving, and I see opportunities ahead for them.
The Government must not muff this one. Never again must we be in the position of not being able to see a realistic future for the British airline and aviation industry. The Government should make the maximum use of Heathrow and Gatwick and allow Stansted to develop as the demand increases. That could mean an additional 5 million rather than 15 million passengers. Either way, there will be a demand to use Stansted because the runway and facilities are there and the airlines will want to use it.
Those who think that if we do not allow the development of Heathrow, including terminal 5, to take place — the commuter airlines will have access to that major airport — are kidding themselves. Unless we guarantee an increase in movements and increased facilities to meet that increase, airports throughout the country with commuter services going into Heathrow will face problems.
I therefore counsel those who have been discussing the issue from the narrow aspect of their local airports to remember that, whatever happens in the future, Heathrow will continue to be the jewel in the crown and the magnet and that we shall want our commuter aircraft to use that airport.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: One of the great mysteries to me has been the fact that during the past 20 years the most consistent piece of Government policy—no matter which party has been, in power—has been the desire to undertake the major expansion of Stansted airport. Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for the Environment or for Transport, after collecting their seals, after the kissing of hands ceremony and after leaving Buckingham palace, go back to the great white Lubianka in Marsham street and go through the secret, simple and moving ceremony of being given the documents dealing with a major expansion of Stansted airport.
It is right and proper that there should be passion in this debate from hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and, if he gets the opportunity, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), because they live in the area and have their constituents' interests at heart. I commend my hon. Friends for that. There are, however, many people in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) who have fought against the major expansion of that airport for 21 years. Promises have been made and broken by successive Governments. It is right that Stansted airport's expansion, which seems to behave like some great unslaked vampire, should finally be laid to rest this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), in a forceful and perceptive speech, made it clear—

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: I just want to explain the mystery to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not realise that there are civil servants who have these plans in little cubby holes and, when they find a Minister stupid enough to take them out and make them his own, they are presented to the House of Commons as Government policy?

Mr. Hayes: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall say no more on that matter. I understand what he says.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds rightly said that long-term passenger predictions had been horribly wrong. There is no reason why the figures put forward by the inspector will be wrong as well. It would be foolish to deny that there will be an increase in passenger demand in the next few years, but we should not forget that it would be a grave mistake to expand Stansted airport, to the detriment of the environment and of the people. We are talking about investment in the infrastructure worth about £716 million, about the British Airports Authority spending £1 billion in extending a terminal, and about extending a rail link at a cost of £170 million. All the time our Chancellor and our Government are telling us that we should be particularly worried and careful about the public sector borrowing requirement.
It is about time the Government grasped the nettle of understanding that we must have a consistent and coherent airport strategy and policy that will bring us fairly and squarely into the 21st century and beat off foreign competition. We should accept wholeheartedly the inspector's recommendation to expand terminal 5 immediately. Let it be expanded to take 53 million passengers, but at the same time let Stansted be allowed to expand naturally from 5 million to perhaps 6 million or 7 million passengers.
Ours is the Government of free competition. Where is the free competition at Stansted at the moment? The airport is heavily subsidised, but still loses £4 million a year. We are the party of free competition and market forces. Let us give the north a fair slice of the cake. We have not done so over the years. That is one of the reasons why I shall not vote with the Government this evening.
British Airways has made it clear that a major expansion of Stansted airport would be an economic disaster. The split-site operation would increase BA's operating costs by about 5 per cent. It would add £150 million a year to those operating costs.

Mr. Tim Smith: That is British Airways' problem.

Mr. Hayes: It is the taxpayers' problem, and it will be an even greater problem for the taxpayer because it will be a further shadow cast over the privatisation of the airline.
How will my constituency be affected in terms of jobs? The effect will be devastating. One of my largest electrical employers, who employs several thousand people, made it clear to the public inquiry that it would consider pulling out of the constituency. There would be a net loss of jobs, though we have heard about the mass migration of thousands of people into my constituency. The inspector talked about the urbanisation of Harlow. There are already only 14 acres of development land left. The housing list grows longer every day, yet the inspector talked of the possible substantial urbanisation of Harlow. He said that about 17,000 dwellings would have to be built in the area.
I understand the real fears of those hon. Members who have a constituency interest in terminal 5. However, what does the inspector say about noise? He says:
I am wholly satisfied that the development and operation of a fifth terminal would not have a perceptible effect on the noise climate in the Heathrow area. The development would not delay the improvement or rate of improvement in any way that would be discernible to those affected by Heathrow air noise.
The first message that should be brought home to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is one that was made to him forcefully in the CAA debate. The limitation


on air traffic movements of 275,000 which the Government intend to impose at Heathrow is nonsense. It will make nonsense of terminal 4, and it will make terminal 5 utterly impossible. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends accept that, with the new microwave techniques, it is possible to have more than the 330 air traffic movements suggested in the CAA's revised figures.
As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said in a speech with which I wholeheartedly agreed, we must make it clear to the Government and the country that the House will not be ridden over roughshod. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction must realise that a number of hon. Members are dissatisfied with the present proposals and that a number of us will not allow our constituencies and our communities to be devastated.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Because of the great importance of Manchester international airport, the Opposition's contribution to the debate has been dominated by my hon. Friends from the north-west of England. However, we do not mean to imply that the debate is about Manchester airport. It is about airport strategy and policy for the country as a whole.
We all accept that—as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) rightly said — Heathrow will continue to be the centre of the United Kingdom's airports policy. Although we are defending our communities and their interests, we have a common cause with other northern airports such as Newcastle and Leeds-Bradford, Scottish airports such as Prestwick. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), he spoke with a clear constituency interest, but that is not incompatible with a national airports policy. We must have such a policy. That is what is so disappointing with the inspector's report. It is not an objective report about a national airports policy but one that is premised and predicated by pressure from the airline establishment, the CAA and the BAA, which have a strong vested interest in the development of Stansted.
The CAA was not designed as anything other than a regulatory body. That it should have chosen, 48 hours before the debate, to weigh in on the side of the inspector's report and Stansted calls into question its future and reputation. The report is premised by acceptance of the orthodoxies of the airline establishment. I pay tribute to the North of England Regional Consortium, which has made information freely available to all hon. Members. It is one of the few groups that has given us the opportunity to examine arguments that run counter to the report, the airline establishment and, it seems, the Secretary of State.
The report does not tackle some basic facts. There is no adequate discussion of the costs of developing Stansted. That should be compared with the Roskill report, which made a detailed examination of the cost structures then available. As to the evidence on which the inspector bases his report, I should like to quote from Colin Buchanan's pamphlet "Deadlock at Stansted". He writes:
The result of the Inspector's approach is strikingly illustrated by his own estimates of the future distribution of air travel. By 1995 the passenger through-put in London airports will be twice that of all the other UK airports put together. With a mere 17 million people living in the South East and 37 million elsewhere it sounds like forecasting gone mad".
He is right, because the inspector talks of 75 million movements in the south-east and only 36 million in the rest

of the country. He is effectively telling people in the north, Scotland and Wales that they will either be denied the opportunity to travel through airports or will have to go through airports in the south-east. That is ridiculous and an insult to my constituents and those of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
The amount of capital required to develop Stansted is also unacceptable to those of us who do not represent the south-east. Even the minimal estimates of the inspector are for perhaps £500 million. The more realistic estimates of the North of England Regional Consortium reach £1·3 billion. We simply cannot accept so much investment going to the south-east. I do not want to deny the southeast of its share of public investment, but it would not be acceptable for such a massive development to go ahead in one region at a time of public expenditure restraint and directly at the expense of other regions. In Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow we need investment in housing, schools and the infrastructure. Such cities have housing crises and decaying sewers. They have a manifest need for investment both to create employment and facilities that are decaying. We could not, therefore, accept that investment.
Moreover, such investment would deny other airports their place in the airport structure of the United Kingdom. If Stansted is developed, it will guarantee that Manchester airport cannot be the gateway airport, about which even the Government Front Bench will refer to in glowing terms. Given massive airport development in the southeast, airlines will not allow their aircraft to fly into and out of the north of England.
We were willing to co-operate with British Airways recently about the CAA report. But British Airways has not been a friend to Manchester airport in the past. It has taken a defensive strategy and has known that it is safer to operate from the south-east. It was not prepared to experiment and to move to Manchester, where the commercial gain exists, but at a higher risk.
The north-east has passengers. Our catchment area represents 20 million people. I should be delighted to know what the Minister finds so amusing about the plight of Manchester airport. If he is listening, perhaps he would like to leap to his feet and explain. In the absence of any comment from him, I repeat that Manchester airport has a catchment area of 20 million people. That is as large as that in the south-east. The area deserves the third international airport, but not at the exclusion of developments in Leeds-Bradford, Speke or other regional airports. That would not be the case with the development of Stansted. If Stansted is developed, Manchester and all other regional airports would not have the necessary capital made available to expand.
The issue is important for the north-west, and it unites hon. Members from all regions. Hon. Members representing the south-east recognise the need for an airports policy, which will maintain the supremacy of the south-east as the centre of the air industry. But they recognise, as we do, the importance of allowing people who do not live within an hour of London the opportunity of an airport structure which serves their interests as consumers and in developing the economies of those areas.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I speak as the authentic voice of Heathrow airport because the entire


airport, including terminals 4 and 5, lie within my constituency. The development is vital to the from the north on both sides of the House, I find it amazing that some of my hon. Friends, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), should be unconcerned about the creation of so many jobs and more concerned about the problems of noise.
As I understand it, all airlines want T5. Travellers coming to London want to arrive at Heathrow. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of a comment he made to me when I suggested that some domestic movements could be moved from Heathrow elsewhere. He said:
When people fly to London, they want to come to Heathrow, not Gatwick or Stansted.
I hope that he will bear that in mind when he comes to make some decisions.
Regional airports have an important part to play in the future of civil aviation. Being in favour of terminal 5 does not mean being opposed to regional expansion. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly made the point about the need for the Government to take into consideration the north and its problems of unemployment and so on. I fully support a scheme that would allow for the expansion of Manchester and other northern airports alongside the development of terminal 5.
A third major airport at Stansted is not wanted. The Government should bear in mind that that strong view has been put forward during the seven hours of this debate. However, a marginal increase in traffic movements would be accepted by those who live in and around the area, but nothing more at this stage.
Terminal 5 is seen as providing the best solution for future additional airport capacity. The inspector saw terminal 5 as providing an opportunity on the best site anywhere in the United Kingdom for airport expansion to modernise and improve Heathrow's facilities. There will also be the increased prosperity throughout the area to which I have referred.
The inspector dealt fully and comprehensively with noise. He dismissed the arguments of the well organised and articulate anti-Heathrow noise lobby. One wonders how many of those people who complain about noise have moved into the area since Heathrow has developed at reduced house prices and now want to maintain the value of their properties. The inspector said that terminal 5 would not make a perceptible difference on either the level of noise or the rate of noise reduction in future. I fully agree with that.
The inspector also said that the 275,000 ATM limit was misconceived and ill-advised, and he produced substantial evidence to justify that view. Approximately 20,000 general ATMs at Heathrow could be moved immediately and I should like to see that happen straight away.
One wonders why the Government tried to introduce the Civil Aviation Bill to bring those movements in. My guess is that it had something to do with civil servants who seem to be controlling civil aviation and its policy developments in Britain. At times Sir Norman Payne could be substituted for the permanent secretary in the Department of Transport and nobody would notice the difference in the work done.
Infrastructure improvements are necessary in the Heathrow area whether or not terminal 5 is built and prior

to the coming on line of terminal 4. The inspector supports the view of the Hillingdon borough council that the Hayes bypass should be built. He felt that it had a strategic role to play and should be given trunk road status or 100 per cent. funding from the Department of Transport. He went on to say that the Department's view as to why it should not be a trunk road or 100 per cent. funded was wholly unacceptable and he could not understand the reasoning or the lack of it.
The expansion of the Piccadilly line would make a real contribution to the access to Heathrow, and that was also supported by the inspector. As we have heard, British Rail is developing a junction at Iver station and a link from there to Heathrow is a possibility which could also make some contribution to solving the potential access problems of the airport.
Terminal 5 has the advantage that it could be financed by the airlines and would provide an attractive rate of return if Heathrow were to be privatised. That is also important in the context of the public expenditure aspects of the capital investment. Government capital investment would be modest but long overdue in the successful part of south-east England where public investment has not kept pace with the increase in economic development. The Government must bear that in mind when they make their decision.
I am pleased that the British Airports Authority has suddenly come round to being in favour of terminal 5. If or when terminal 5 comes on line, we must ensure that the dirty hands of the BAA are kept away from it. It created chaos when it organised the operation of terminal 4. The people who want to use terminal 4 have not been consulted about the layout. The concessionaires on the car hire side have been told that they will have small kiosks where only one person will be able to work and where they will not be able to use their computers.
The British Airports Authority is not interested in the problems. When I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister of State about some of the problems, I am sure that the reply I received was written by civil servants. It defended the British Airports Authority's view and suggested that the authority was doing a damn fine job. It is an appalling organisation and it is about time someone investigated its operation. I understand that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will be doing so in the not-too-distant future; it is long overdue. There has been very little consultation between it and anyone else about any airport that it controls anywhere.
The development of terminal 5 must be put in train immediately. That means giving all the planning consents necessary to get it off the ground. Regional airports can be expanded along with terminal 5. Neither is mutually exclusive. The south-east does not need a major third airport. The development of terminal 5 calls for infrastructure improvements along the lines I have suggested.

11 pm

Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Those of us who are in favour of regional airport development are delighted because nobody has been against their development. We were delighted to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say in his opening remarks that it is the Government's desire to bring air travel within the reach of


more people. The most effective way of doing so is to bring it within their reach literally by letting us have the option to expand the regional airports.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to those who are opposing regional airports. I do not believe that anybody is. What we are concerned about is that many decisions that have been taken seem to frustrate actively the growth of regional airports. That is what a fundamental part of the debate is about.
There is a chicken and egg situation. We say that there is a demand for the development of regional airports. How can we test the demand if policies seem to work against regional airports going out and capturing the market that they say exists? In its press release of 17 January British Airways said:
We are committed to introducing international services from regional airports whenever there is enough customer demand to make them viable. We know from our surveys that Manchester is the main candidate for our second international hub, and now that Government aviation policy has been finalised, we are pressing ahead as fast as possible.
That airline, which has actually tested the market, is saying to the Government, "Give us the opportunities; we will provide the services because we believe that the demand exists." We are asking for a fair deal so that we can test the market for regional development.
I want to refer to the frustration that we have experienced at Liverpool airport. I do not pretend that it can ever be the sort of airport that we hope Manchester airport will become. It will play a complementary role. One of the areas for expansion has to be the charter market. An important part of the package is the duty-free facility. Whenever we have asked Government for a duty-free facility to enable us to market Liverpool, they have moved the goal posts. They said we should have 50,000 passengers; we got 50,000. They upped it to 70,000; we got 70,000. Then they upped it yet again to 100,000. What price the encouragement of regional airports policy? If my right hon. Friend wants to encourage regional airports to expand, the Government must give them the means to test the market and attract customers.
The debate is about more than airport policy; it is about the north-south tilt. It is about the effect of a massive development at Stansted on regional development, on investment and on the commitment of Government resources. It is about the damage that will be done to the chances of the regional economies picking up in what will be a difficult period for us all in attracting investment.
The Government must strike a balance between a viable future policy for airports and airlines and the right economic balance for the regions. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to disregard those two important elements of the equation. We in the north-west and the north will not lightly forgive a Government who make a decision which will make it difficult if not impossible for us to attract the investment which we believe would be diverted if the expansion of Stansted were to go ahead. That message is coming to us loud and clear from chambers of commerce and business men in our areas. I urge my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Cabinet to take that message on board. This is perhaps the most important decision that we as north-west Members will be called upon to take in our lifetimes. I urge the Government not to ignore our message.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am grateful for this opportunity to express the views of the north-east group of Members. I intend to be brief, and I apologise for the fact that other parliamentary duties prevented me from attending the whole debate.
I should first point out an inconsistency in the discussion. Many hon. Members, on both sides, have stressed the need for regional development and the importance of airport facilities in that context. Others have claimed that the expansion of Stansted would demolish the surrounding countryside and interfere with the rural quietness. Frankly, the north-east would welcome some noise in the current silence of industries no longer in use while so many people are on the cobbles, suffering enforced indolence due to lack of investment. We badly need the injection that regional airport development would provide.
Newcastle is not the only important factor. I wish to make a special plea for the Teesside airport, which has a record for all-weather access unequalled by any other airport in the country. When all other airports have been closed, it has been able to take the largest craft. It also has excellent road and rail facilities at its boundary fence, and British Rail, for all the ineptitude of which some people complain, has put on inter-city 125 trains at the drop of a hat to get people to London almost as quickly as they would have got there from Heathrow.
I shall not go into detail now, but I hope that hon. Members will go into the points that I have made. I believe that the whole structure of airport authorities and management in this country is so crazy that it needs to be thoroughly examined and completely reconstituted.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I shall be brief. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) is fortunate because he and his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) have not been present during the debate. Some hon. Members have been present since half past three. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to say "Get on with it". We listened to a very boring speech from her at the beginning of the debate which lowered the tone and started the debate in a bad way. If the hon. Lady has something to say, I hope that she will get up and say it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I shall be delighted to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That will take time out of the debate, will it not?

Sir Fergus Montgomery: The debate revolves round airport policy, and I make no apology for putting the case for the north. Many hon. Members representing northern constituencies have tried desperately hard to make clear to the Government how anxious we are to have further development of the regional airports. The Government must heed the message of the two nations and recognise that, if there is to be a massive investment for a third major airport in the south-east, there will be an almighty explosion in the north of England. We badly need that investment in the north, which we believe will produce jobs and assist the region.
All Members of Parliament have been swamped with circulars in the last few days. I had to laugh at one which I received from a group which said that it would oppose


the situation whereby passengers who had an origin or destination in south-east England were forced to fly from a regional airport. That point was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel).
I get a little sick of the fact that the north of England always seems to be treated as the poor relation. It is the people from the north who have to come down to Heathrow or Gatwick to make flights out of the country.
I disagree with the inspector's estimates of future London demand. Thousands of passengers from the north would be only too delighted if they could make their journeys direct from a northern airport instead of having to travel through London. Many figures and statistics have been given, but, in order to allow some of my hon. Friends to speak, I shall omit them. I cannot help feeling that the forecasts used by the inspector have given a false picture.
I am sorry that the inspector seems to have paid so little attention to the case that was put forward by the North of England Regional Consortium. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay more attention to its case than was paid by the inspector.
Manchester international airport is a successful airport. It is Britain's third largest airport and already services 40 British and foreign airlines. However, I believe that under successive Governments — Labour and Conservative — the interests of Manchester airport have been subordinated to south-east England. I wonder how much thought has been given to the loss of time by business men who have to fly abroad on business and make the journey from Manchester or the north to Heathrow or Gatwick. How much more convenient and time-saving it would be if they could make their international flights from Manchester airport. If there were more international flights from Manchester it would be a great boon to businessmen in the north, it would improve trade links and it would generate much-needed jobs. Until such time as those services are provided, the northern business man must continue to waste time and money in travelling via London, Amsterdam or Frankfurt.
That brings me to the case of Singapore Airlines, which has already been touched on in the debate. This airline wanted to fly direct three times a week each way between Singapore and Manchester. It was perfectly happy to have straightforward competition with the British airline, which wanted to fly the same route. This was a tremendous opportunity for Manchester airport. Somebody in the Department of Transport refused the application on the grounds that there were not enough potential passengers to justify more flights. That smacks of the old adage of the man in Whitehall knowing best. If Singapore Airlines, which is one of the most efficient airlines in the world, believes that it makes commercial sense to fly from Singapore to Manchester, who is it in the Department of Transport who would argue on that score? I remind my right hon. Friend that when the Glasgow to London monopoly route of British Airways was opened to competition from British Midland, the number of passengers increased by 30 per cent., prices fell and the service improved. That pattern should be encouraged.
I make no secret of the fact that so far as airport policy is concerned I want to know what is in it for Manchester. Every hon. Member will be fighting his own corner for the area that he represents.
I question some of the recommendations of the inspector, for example, that Stansted should be expanded to take 15 million passengers per year by 1990 with a

further growth thereafter to 25 million, with no second runway to be allowed. Heathrow's capacity is to be increased from 28 million passengers to 38 million when terminal 4 is completed next year and to 53 million by 1995 with the addition of the fifth terminal. I am still unconvinced that we need three major airports in the southern corner of England. I query whether a boost to the economy of more than £1 billion should be applied to the Stansted area where unemployment is not a major problem. Such an investment would be welcome in the north.
Massive development at Stansted would undermine the regional airports. They have an important part in the economies of the regions. They could play an even more important part by encouraging new industrial investment and the development of tourism. It should never be forgotten that they could have an enormous effect on relieving pressure on the London airports. However, I realise that regional airports would have to face much greater difficulties if they are competing with a massive subsidised airport at Stansted.
There is an answer to my right hon. Friend's dilemma. If he gives regional airports real encouragement they could release capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick and make a large-scale expansion at Stansted unnecessary. It would also make the best use of national airfield resources.
I realise that the purpose of the debate is for Ministers to listen. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends not to dismiss the case for the north as contemptuously as the inspector did. It makes great sense to utilise to the full the airport capacity that we have, rather than to spend enormous sums on Stansted.
Sir Colin Buchanan has just published a pamphlet, at the end of which he states:
To give regional airports greater scope would make sense in relation to the spread of the population and would aid economic recovery.
I hope that that phrase will be heeded when the decision is finally taken.

Mr. Tim Smith: I am opposed to the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow because of the damaging effect that it will have on my constituency. It will result in increased noise and affect the roads and the environment.
As the chairman of the South Bucks district council, Mr. Peter Janes, recently said:
If Heathrow is expanded it will again be the long suffering population of the Heathrow hinterland who will endure the consequences of more aircraft overhead, more traffic on local roads and major erosion of the green belt.
Aircraft noise is of particular concern to my constituents in Colnbrook, Dorney, Burnham and Taplow. They wish the 275,000 limit on air traffic movements to be imposed and kept. So do I.
The M4 is already overloaded. The M25 will be at capacity when it is opened. Further pressure will be put on local roads and the whole point of the M25, which for my constituents is the relief of local congestion, will be lost.
The green belt in south Bucks is already severely damaged. Only last Monday I had an Adjournment debate on the situation in Iver. I said:
Iver is under attack from every quarter". — [Official Report, 21 January 1985; Vol. 71, c. 834]
If the fifth terminal is allowed, the Perry Oaks sewage works will have to be moved either to south Iver or to


Dorney. Both villages are in my constituency and both propositions would be totally unacceptable to my constituents.
Both the M4 and the M25 pass through Iver, and now the Department of Transport wants to build a motorway service area in Iver and British Rail wants to build a park-and-ride there. If the fifth terminal goes ahead, Slough might as well become part of Greater London, along with Iver and Colnbrook. We might as well give up the pretence that it is in a green belt and accept that we are the unwilling victims of urban sprawl.
Each time a motorway has been built, gravel has been extracted locally. Now the inspector suggests that more gravel should be extracted to build a fifth terminal. Therefore, any remaining part of the green belt will become a giant rubbish tip.
When I gave evidence to the inquiry, I dealt in detail with the effect on south Iver and on Dorney. Because of the shortage of time I shall not deal with that again. All I would say is that because it would severely damage the quality of life in south Buckinghamshire I am totally opposed to the inspector's recommendation that a fifth terminal should eventually be built at Heathrow.

Mr. Roger Gale: An advertisement in today's copy of The Times from the North of England Regional Consortium begins:
This is the third time that the British Airports Authority have tried to foist Stansted upon the public. On two previous occasions they have failed. But at the third attempt, and after the expenditure of millions of pounds and even more millions of words, their persistence has brought them a favourable report from the Public Inquiry Inspector.
In this debate we have heard a great deal, much of it disparaging, about the British Airports Authority. If its persistence has borne the truth of the national interest in upon the inspector, then all power to it. If what this advertisement says and really means is that its millions of pounds have bought it the inspector, then that advertisement is scurrilous.
We have heard in this debate a great deal about the north and about Heathrow, but very little about Stansted. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Hon. Members do not, of course, use the former, but we have heard a great deal about the latter. I do not believe that many hon. Members are unconvinced of the need for airport expansion in this country, so the question is not "what" but "where".
Hours ago I was asked by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) what my interest in the matter is. I hold no brief for the British Airports Authority. My constituency is unlikely particularly to benefit, any more than is any other constituency in the country, from an airport at Stansted or anywhere else outside my constituency. I recognise the regional needs of the north and I recognise also the need for the expansion of regional airports, but we are debating a third London airport.
The case against another terminal at Heathrow has been made very forcefully by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins), and by my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) and for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and, will I hope, be made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who is yet to speak. The nub of that argument

is, "Yes, we do need more capacity, but," as my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, "land somewhere else."
The prime case against Stansted was made by the hon. Member in whose constituency that airfield is situated, my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), who claimed to be speaking for the general good. My hon. Friend went on to criticise a MORI poll which showed that people in the area would welcome an expansion of that airfield because that poll was conducted within a 30-mile radius. It does not seem to me that 30 miles constitutes "the national good", the subject that we ought to be debating tonight. My hon. Friend went on to say that people have an insatiable appetite for air travel. I would ask hon. Members to consider that both I and my colleagues who sit on the tourism committee seek to attract new visitors to this country and the business and money that they will bring. If there is an insatiable appetite for air travel, and if it is bringing people to this country, that is all to the good.
I come to the case for the north, about which we have heard so much. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), at the beginning of this debate, when many hon. Members who are now chipping in were not present, said that not to locate this new and much needed airfield in the north would be "a crime against the north." I recognise the case for the north. I understand what unemployment means — it is 19 per cent. in my constituency.
However, we are talking, not about regional aid, but about the need for a new airport. I believe that the airport must be situated at Stansted. We have failed in the debate to consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) described as "the interests of the customers"—the visitor and the international airlines. They wish to visit London and the continent. If we ignore that fact, we shall miss out.
If we do not adopt the report, 20,000 jobs will go to Schipol, Frankfurt and Paris. That will be because the House has not seized the opportunity to build the airport that is needed, where it is needed, now.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: In the few minutes that remain, I wish to express with all the vehemence that I can and with all the weight that I can muster the passion felt by my constituents about the airport inquiries and the misery that they suffer from living under the Heathrow flight path.
Noise is the most important consideration for my constituents and for nearly 3 million people who live in the vicinity of Heathrow. I resent the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield), who said that I should not complain about the quality of life for my constituents in wealthy Richmond. Noise is noise. Whether a person is employed or unemployed, old or young, noise at the levels around Heathrow is unacceptable.
Whatever minor reductions may come from new technology, an increase in aircraft movements would provide a prospect of even greater honor. An unlimited hell is already unbearable for many of my constituents. A small drop of water is harmless, but the constant unremitting repetition of that drop — the Chinese water torture — drives its victims mad in terrifying agony. Heathrow is Richmond's water torture.
In a statement made to Mr. Eyre during his inquiry, and kindly repeated by him in the report, it was said:
Modern technology has reduced aircraft noise from the totally unacceptable to the merely unbearable.
The report stated:
Air noise is a modern curse from which the unfortunate inhabitants of the Heathrow area have been required to suffer over a long period.
The report went on:
The present noise climate in some areas around Heathrow is worse than people should be required to accept.
The inspector said that double glazing might help, but double glazing does not help in Kew gardens or Richmond park or when people are trying to sleep with the windows open on hot summer evenings.
Aircraft noise and the horrendous levels of traffic, both in the air and on the roads in my constituency, are the blights of the area. There is no doubt that the development of a fifth terminal at Heathrow will increase aircraft movements beyond the unacceptable. Indeed, the level is already unacceptable.
British Airways has said that it proposes to increase the number of movements to 400,000 a year by modern technology and by using two parallel runways. The Government's position is what my constituents believe and what I have always told them. I hope that the Government will confirm that Heathrow will not be expanded beyond four terminals, air transport movements at Heathrow will be limited to 275,000 a year, for environmental reasons, Gatwick will remain a single-runway airport, regional airports will be developed to their full potential and that it is in the national interest to provide adequate facilities for future demand for air transport in London and the south-east. As Sir John Non said, Stansted has chosen itself.
In summary, my constituents and I look for a realistic and viable development at Stansted, encouragement for regional airports as demand is created, an environmental limit at Heathrow, continuing noise reduction orders and, above all, no T5.

Mr. Peter Snape: This has been a parliamentary rather than a political occasion. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the commitment that they have expressed to a regional airports policy.
I regret that time prevents me from listing one by one individual Members and their comments, but I pay tribute to the outstanding speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), which graphically set out the argument. He left no one in any doubt about the justice of his case. I pay tribute also to the speech of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst). As we expect on these occasions, he was fluent, coherent and impassioned in some instances, and rightly so. He has demonstrated over the years his determination to protect his constituency from what he sees, understandably enough, as the likely ravages of Stansted.
It has been suggested that, because the debate is being held on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, its importance is not particularly substantial. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) has demonstrated that that is not so. He observed that various important debates have taken place over the years on such a motion. It has been suggested in the newspapers that as

the payroll vote, as it is somewhat disrespectfully known — Ministers and their Parliamentary Private Secretaries — has been instructed to stay well away from the Government Lobby this evening, the result of a Division will not matter. It is argued that the Government will have shown that it is not significant by keeping the pay roll vote away and thereby downgrading its importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has adequately disposed of that assertion. I hope that the House will reject it.
We have heard individual Members making out a case on behalf of their region or constituency regardless of party affiliation. They can best make out their case, and dispose of the Stansted argument once and for all, by using their votes in a Division. I understand that the Secretary of State claims that he has a quasi judicial role as he and the Minister of State, Department of the Environment is responsible for making the decision. I accept that. But to claim that the same quasi judicial role extends to every Minister stretches constitutional credulity, to say the least. I am sure that it provides a convenient excuse for the Government to explain away tonight's defeat, if defeated they are to be, but that will not make it any less relevant.
The Secretary of State said in opening the debate that the Government felt that this was an unprecedented opportunity for the House to debate a planning matter before a decision had been reached. The House should be suitably grateful for that. Of course, in the circumstances, it is understandable enough that the right hon. Gentleman glossed over the fact that the only reason why we are having the debate is that he has failed twice to get a sittings motion for the Civil Aviation Bill in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but when he tried to explain away yet another disaster for which he had been responsible he said that there would have to be a debate on this issue because of the Committee's failure to approve its sittings motion.
Unless we dispose of this matter this evening, the House can be sure that it will come back to haunt us. In December 1984 there was an article in the London Evening Standard by Mr. Max Hastings in which he left readers in no doubt that the first proposal to build Stansted airport was brought forward in 1967, when the then chairman of the British Airports Authority made it plain that unless Stansted went ahead the prospects of aeroplane landings and take-offs at London's airports would be diabolical to say the least by the mid-1970s. However, Sir Peter's worst fears were not realised in the mid-1970s and there is no sign and no evidence in the mid-1980s that his fears are more realistic 10 years on.
However, I may have some good news for the House. Regardless of what the civil servants dust down in the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment, the track record of the Secretary of State for Transport suggests that he will be with us on the question of Stansted, for he is a long and consistent opponent of the construction of London's third airport. I do not often get the chance to praise him, but I am delighted to think that I shall be able to praise him on this occasion for what I hope will be his consistency. As a long-standing opponent of London's third airport, I hope that the House can rely on the right hon. Gentleman to make the right decision when the appropriate time comes.
On 13 June 1973 we debated the question of London's third airport when we discussed what was then the Maplin Development Bill. Indeed, one could easily delete


"Maplin" and insert "Stansted" because the same arguments apply in both cases. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment at the time. Earlier tonight he said, bravely if cavalierly, "One cannot rely on Ministers' promises." He should know because he was responsible in those days.
When the Maplin Development Bill was being debated, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) moved new clause 2, which read:
It shall be the duty of the Civil Aviation Authority, in consultation with the Maplin Development Authority and appropriate Minister, to keep under constant review technical developments of new, quieter aero-engines, short take-off capability or other relevant factors affecting the operations of civil aircraft, and it shall take such action as may be appropriate to delay, vary or desist from the construction of an airport on land to be reclaimed as a result of the passage of this Act.
The hon. Gentleman moved the new clause in such a persuasive manner that the then Conservative Government suffered a dramatic defeat. No fewer than 15 Tory Members bravely demonstrated their principles by going into the Lobby with Labour Members. They thereby defeated the Government and wrote that important new clause into the Maplin Development Bill.
I am glad to remind the House that among those 15 good brave men and true was the present Secretary of State for Transport. As I said, praise for the right hon. Gentleman does not fall easily from my lips, but praise him I shall — it will probably do his career even more damage than he has done to it himself — if he demonstrates that virtue of consistency tonight and reaffirms his bravery of 13 June 1973.
In those days the Conservative party was led by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He and the present Secretary of State for Transport were hardly the best of friends, for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup had had the temerity to fire his right hon. Friend from his then post at the Treasury.
However, there has been no such occurrence under the present Government. Bearing in mind the close relationship that obviously exists between the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister, one can only hope that he adopts that consistency for which I have praised him so as to impress on the Prime Minister the fact that objection to the construction of London's third airport is as great now as it was in 1973, when he made that stand.

Mr. Soames: rose—

Mr. Snape: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman took more than 20 minutes, which is more than I have to wind up the debate. He did not say a great deal, though, to be fair to him, he said it prettily.
No case has been made for London's third airport. The statistical evidence is conflicting, to say the least, and the fact that the BAA has demonstrated its belief in London's third airport should impress nobody. The BAA has been a consistent supporter of the third London airport since the idea was first mooted. That is hardly surprising, because the effect on its finances is like winning the jackpot. No hon. Member needs to be reminded that, if the British Airports Authority is privatised in the Government's passion for privatisation and the third London airport is a going concern, BAA will be even more valuable when it comes on the market.
I agreed with a great deal of the speech by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), who spoke with passion and commitment. I know that, as he comes from the Manchester area, he would wish to defend the future of Manchester airport. He said that the free market economy should dictate what happens in these matters, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that that is not true anywhere else in the world, and there is no reason why it should be true in this country. The hon. Gentleman would leave it to the operators to decide where to fly, but I believe that the prospects of regional airports booming and developing are grim. All around the world it has been necessary for Governments to direct airlines as to which airports they should use. [Interruption.] It is not rubbish. A Right-wing Government in France had to direct French airlines and other airlines to use Charles de Gaulle airport, because when that airport was built all the airlines said that they would not use it. The Japanese Government, who were hardly a Left-wing Government, had to coerce the world's airlines to use the new Marita airport because it was so far from the centre of Tokyo. So market forces will not do the job.

Mr. Franks: It is the consumer who determines the free market.

Mr. Snape: It is not the consumer. Despite my praise for the hon. Gentleman's speech, I have to say that part of his speech was somewhat simplistic. He argues, as we do, that the consumers do not have a choice and are not allowed to dictate the market forces as they affect British regional airports. The arrogance of some hon. Members from the south of England who seem to believe that the only people who wish to buy tickets for international flights are based in and around London has to be heard to be believed. Are there no business men in Manchester or Birmingham who may wish to fly to, for example, the United States?
The Secretary of State — I am afraid that my praise for him is over; we are now back to our normal relationship—who professes a deep and undying belief in private enterprise, has prevented airlines from flying into our regional airports as a deliberate act of policy. Where is the free enterprise and consumer choice in that? This whole argument is riddled with inconsistencies.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Ridleyed.

Mr. Snape: And he is my Whip!
There is a fairly modern and prosperous airport in Birmingham.
I was astonished to hear the silly intervention of the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills), who, having intervened, headed for the door in mortification. He has not been seen since. I was astonished to hear him say that the capacity at Birmingham airport should not be increased. Despite spending £63 million on a brand new terminal, no more aeroplanes than at present should be allowed to take off and land there, because it would disturb the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I cannot understand an hon. Member who pleads such a case on behalf of his constituents. People living by an airfield should expect aircraft to take off and land. If any hon. Member took that attitude to a railway station, he would be laughed out of the Chamber. However, the hon. Member for Meriden


said that, despite all the public expenditure on Birmingham airport, no other aeroplanes should be permitted to take off and land there.
An overwhelming case has been made for the regional airports. Every hon. Member, with the exception of three Conservative Members, has condemned the Government's proposals. For goodness sake, let the House of Commons speak out tonight. Let us kill off once and for all the myth that Stansted is necessary by casting all our votes in the same Division Lobby this evening. Only in that way can we plan the way forward. Only in that way can the country have a sensible aviation policy — a policy that, under successive Governments, it has long lacked.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): The debate has lasted for nearly eight hours. It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that not a single member of the Social Democratic party has spoken and that only one Liberal Member has made a contribution. Although, excluding the Front Bench spokesman, 11 Labour Members have made speeches, it is the Tory party that has made the most massive contribution—[Laughter.] Oh yes. There have been 26—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious to hear the rest.

Mr. Gow: I am anxious to hear it myself. No fewer than 26 of my right hon. and hon. Friends have contributed to the debate.
It is not always wise to believe all that one is told, but I am told that the Opposition Whips were deeply concerned about the imbalance between those speaking from this side and those speaking from the Opposition side. They went out into the highways and byways and found the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who had not even heard my right hon. Friend's opening speech.
No one who has listened to the debate can doubt the importance of the decisions that have to be taken or the strength of feeling in all parts of the House. Today's debate has underlined the wide range of interests that will be affected by those decisions. Although the planning applications relate to Stansted and Heathrow, the whole House accepts that the decisions that will have to be taken will be of deep relevance to the future of airports policy and to every part of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend and I have listened to the debate with the greatest care, but the House will understand that, as my right hon. Friend explained at the beginning, we cannot comment on the arguments that have been deployed. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) acknowledged that fact.
I also remind the House that the procedures under which we are operating were not fashioned by my right hon. Friend or by the present Government. The procedures were laid down by the Labour Government in 1974. Scarcely had the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent got his feet under the desk at the Department of Employment in 1974 when the order was laid on 11 March 1974. It was one of the first measures of the Labour Government. The time for my right hon. Friend and the Government to explain the reasons for our decision and the time to comment on the arguments that have been advanced in the House and elsewhere will be in the later


debate that was promised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last Thursday and which was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend today. I cannot prejudge or be seen to be prejudging issues that are before my right hon. Friend and me for decision.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gow: I have little time.

Hon. Members: "Give way."

Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to the Minister, his time has been cut.

Mr. Gow: The inspector's report ranged widely. He has expressed conclusions on the present Stansted and Heathrow proposals—

Mr. John McWilliam: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is rather inappropriate to raise points of order at this stage.

Mr. McWilliam: I must raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister seems to be claiming the protection of the sub judice rule. Could you make it clear to the House that the sub judice rule does not apply to this debate?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is a lawyer—I am not. I thought that I heard him say that he could not prejudge the issue.

Mr. Snape: He is a divorce lawyer.

Mr. Gow: The inspector has expressed conclusions on the Stansted and Heathrow proposals and on broader and longer-term issues of airport policy. Some hon. Members have paid tribute to the massive work that the inspector and the two assessors have done. I should like to join in paying tribute to them.
It might be helpful for me to explain the matters that are before my right hon. Friend and me and the procedures that we are required to follow. There are two principal matters for determination. The first is an outline planning application dated 25 July 1980 by the British Airports Authority for the expansion of Stansted airport to a capacity of about 15 million passengers a year. The second is an outline planning application dated 18 June 1981 by the Uttlesford district council for the extension of Heathrow airport by the provision of a fifth terminal and associated facilities and works.
Dependent upon the Stansted application are a number of other applications, including an application for planning permission for the carrying out of road works to give improved access to the airport, seven applications for listed building consent, an application for planning permission to re-erect three of the listed buildings on a site at Burton End; and a compulsory purchase order made by the BAA relating to land at Stansted.
The House will remember that, on 3 December 1980, the then Secretary of State for the Environment announced, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst), that he had called in the British Airports Authority's application for the expansion of Stansted. He announced that he was appointing Mr. Graham Eyre QC to hold a public local inquiry into the proposals. Mr. Eyre was appointed subsequently to hold concurrent inquiries into the other matters to which I have referred.
On 12 February 1981 Mr. Philip Maynard was appointed as assessor to assist the inspector on planning


and environmental matters, and on 8 April 1981 Mr. William Woodruff was appointed as assessor to assist on aviation matters. The inquiries opened on 19 September 1981 at Quendon park, near Stansted.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Gow: No, I have little time. The inquiries were adjourned on 28 October 1982. They were resumed on 11 January 1983 at the Crest hotel, Heathrow airport, and were closed after a total of 258 sitting days. The inspector's report was delivered on 28 November 1984, and published on 10 December 1984. It was made clear to the inspector that the inquiries were to be wide-ranging and that the Government intended the fullest opportunity to be given for objectors to express their views on the proposals both about Stansted and Heathrow, and for alternatives to be considered.
During the inquiry the inspector sought and was given the express assurance that he was not precluded from considering matters which ran counter to Government policy. The inspector took full advantage of those assurances and his inquiries were conducted, as his report has been framed, to take account of such matters.
The answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) is that in this case planning applications have been made, have been subject to long inquiries and are now awaiting decisions under the normal procedures laid down in the planning Acts. Despite the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, the question of a special development order cannot arise at this stage.
I remind the House that if my right hon. Friend and I should be disposed to disagree with any recommendation made by the inspector as a result of taking account of new evidence or a new issue of fact not being a matter of Government policy, we are under a statutory duty to inform the parties to the inquiry and to afford them an opportunity of making representations on the new evidence or new issue of fact. Initially it is for Ministers, and ultimately for the courts, to decide whether any material received after the inquiry constitutes new evidence or a new issue of fact that should be referred to the parties for comment. The fact that others may claim that certain material is new evidence or a new issue of fact does not make it so automatically, nor does it follow necessarily that it will influence Ministers' decisions or lead them to agree or disagree with any of the inspector's recommendations.
It is obvious to the House and clear to the Government that it is most desirable that my right hon. Friend and I should reach our decision on these applications as soon as possible, consistent with that thorough examination and consideration of the inspector's report that a matter of such great importance requires.
We shall follow strictly the rules which have been laid down by Parliament provided in the statutory instrument which was approved in 1974. We consider that we have now reached the time when final decisions need to be taken about the future of policy for airports. To every hon. Member who spoke, I say that his contribution will receive proper consideration. My right hon. Friend and I will come back to the House with our decisions at the earliest possible date.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Dennis Canavan(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inevitable defeat of the Government in this Division can you tell the House when the Prime Minister will be going to the Palace to offer her resignation?

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is hypothetical.

Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Presumably once the vote is announced the House will adjourn and there will be no further opportunity to raise points of order or for any other Member to speak. It is therefore important that you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, give a ruling as to what will happen as a result of the defeat of the Government. I suggest that following that defeat you should summon the Prime Minister to make a statement as to when she intends to offer her resignation.

Mr. Speaker: All this is hypothetical. None of us knows what will happen. But if the House votes to adjourn that is what we shall do.

Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the House votes in favour of the Adjournment, that will be tantamount to a defeat of the Government, but there will presumably be no opportunity to raise points of order after the result is announced.

Mr. Speaker: I can do nothing about that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Adjournment is in the hands of the House. If the House votes to adjourn, we shall adjourn, and I shall not be here. If the House votes not to adjourn, we shall proceed in the normal way.

Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to give notice that if the Government are defeated in the Division I shall seek to raise a point of order afterwards to say that the Prime Minister should go to the Palace and offer her resignation and that there should be a general election.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call upon the Tellers.

The House having divided: Ayes 247, Noes 0.

Division No. 84]
[11.58 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Adley, Robert
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Alton, David
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Anderson, Donald
Bruce, Malcolm


Ashdown, Paddy
Buck, Sir Antony


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Caborn, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Campbell, Ian


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Baldry, Tony
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Barnett, Guy
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barron, Kevin
Cartwright, John


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Churchill, W. S.


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Stuart
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clarke, Thomas


Bermingham, Gerald
Clegg, Sir Walter


Blair, Anthony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)


Body, Richard
Cohen, Harry


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Boyes, Roland
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Corbett, Robin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Cowans, Harry






Craigen, J. M.
Heddle, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Heffer, Eric S.


Crowther, Stan
Hicks, Robert


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hind, Kenneth


Cunningham, Dr John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Dalyell, Tarn
Home Robertson, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Deakins, Eric
Howells, Geraint


Dewar, Donald
Hoyle, Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dicks, Terry
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dobson, Frank
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Dormand, Jack
Jackson, Robert


Douglas, Dick
Janner, Hon Greville


Dubs, Alfred
John, Brynmor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eadie, Alex
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Eastham, Ken
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Ellis, Raymond
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Knox, David


Ewing, Harry
Lambie, David


Farr, Sir John
Lamond, James


Fatchett, Derek
Lawler, Geoffrey


Faulds, Andrew
Leadbitter, Ted


Favell, Anthony
Leighton, Ronald


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Lester, Jim


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Litherland, Robert


Forrester, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Foster, Derek
Loyden, Edward


Foulkes, George
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Marcus
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Franks, Cecil
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Freud, Clement
McKelvey, William


Galley, Roy
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Maclean, David John


George, Bruce
McTaggart, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Madden, Max


Godman, Dr Norman
Madel, David


Golding, John
Malone, Gerald


Gould, Bryan
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Mates, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maxton, John


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Hampson, Dr Keith
Meacher, Michael


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Meadowcroft, Michael


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Michie, William


Harvey, Robert
Mikardo, Ian


Haselhurst, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, J.
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)





Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Nellist, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Snape, Peter


O'Brien, William
Spearing, Nigel


O'Neill, Martin
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Park, George
Stott, Roger


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Straw, Jack


Pendry, Tom
Sumberg, David


Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Pike, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Prescott, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Radice, Giles
Thurnham, Peter


Randall, Stuart
Tinn, James


Redmond, M.
Torney, Tom


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wainwright, R.


Rhodes James, Robert
Wallace, James


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wareing, Robert


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Weetch, Ken


Robertson, George
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Welsh, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, John


Rogers, Allan
White, James


Rooker, J. W.
Whitfield, John


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilkinson, John


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Ryman, John
Wilson, Gordon


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wood, Timothy


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Woodcock, Michael


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)



Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Silvester, Fred
Mr. Don Dixon.


NOES


Nil


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. John Browne and



Mr. John Nicholson.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government have been defeated—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House now stands adjourned.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Twelve o'clock.